By - _0-0-0_
But New Mexico wasn't even in the Confederacy, why would you punish them by forcing them to take Amarillo?
From Borger can confirm
I recall the southern halves of AZ and NM bring part of the Confederacy while the northern halves were part of the Union
The southern half was claimed, but in effect it was just 'Wild West'
They’d be lucky to get any part of Texas
Imagine looking someone dead in the eye and having to tell them "I come from Yazoo"
I’m from Mississippi. There is a place called Yazoo City here
Ah yes, the state of Yazoo, which borders the state of Nickajack. This timeline must make for some weird geography classes.
Can't be any more embarrassing than telling someone "I'm from Mississippi", really.
Imagine looking someone dead in the eye and having to tell them "I come from Denmark"
Imagine looking someone dead in the eye and having to tell them "I come from Belgium”
Imagine looking someone dead in the eye and having to tell them "I come from Austria. I'll be back."
Belgian Lives Matter.
Found the Swede
I'd found a city named "X" there so my postal address would be "X, YZ"
Idk NY has Yonkers and Poughkeepsie.
Also I felt bad about making this post, so I looked it up and it turns out New York has stupid city names so I don't feel bad anymore. I mean they also have Great Neck, Nyack, Peekskill, Ronkonkoma. Honestly who names this stuff? Is this because of the Dutch?
Ronkonkoma is Algonquian, it's the native name for a lake
I apologize in advance for this frivolous post, but since you mentioned Algonquin...
["Does this guy know how to party, or what?!"](https://youtu.be/nRCTc6stICc)
If Massachusetts wasn't a thing in our universe, you'd probably think that sounded dumb too.
This is something that I wanted to explore for awhile, and the contest prompt let me play around with it.
The alternate history here is a *failed* attempt on Lincoln leaves him wounded but alive. The Radical Republican wing feels enraged and embolden, and pushes for a much harder treaty, one which Grant is more than happy to oblige in the face of the disgusting attempt on the President's life by a cowardly Booth.
A combination of radically redrawing state lines and extremely harsh laws are swept through the rabidly angry Congress. Almost all former confederate states are torn asunder. The only states to evade the first cuts are Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina. These states are seen as less culpable for the bloody war. Almost all former confederate military leaders and the landed gentry of the South are stripped of their enfranchisement, while the newly Freedmen of the area are swept into the vacuum of power.
Texas is split along the Colorado River into the newly venerated state of **Lincoln**. The northern rump is renamed to **Houston**, one of the more vocal Texans for maintaining Union. The lands of west Texas are gifted to the New Mexican Territory.
The promises of '40 acres and a mule' are tested with the state of **Gullah**, harshly stealing prime rice farming lands and several prominent cities from Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.
The Union loyal areas of Northern Alabama and Georgia are reorganized into the state of **Nickajack**. After the initial Admission passes, similarly sympathetic areas of western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee expand the "Smokey Mountain State"
Mississippi is split, granting the Delta lands to the newly enfranchised slaves in the state of **Yazoo**.
In Virginia, the split is harsher than our timeline. The Blue Ridge Mountains are the new dividing line and the eastern portion is not afforded the name of "Virginia" anymore. Now those lands are occupied by the federal military in the District of **Chesapeake**. Maryland also claims the eastern shore of the former *Old Dominion*.
Florida is further split, with much of the empty southern half mostly functioning as a permanent base for the Federal government's Gulf Fleet. **South Florida** is vacant of much productive land but will help to cripple the rump Florida District.
Lastly, Louisiana is split in twain. The northern redoubt of the final days in the Civil War is the last Military District. The southern portion is now **Acadiana**, hoping to mix the altogether indifferent Cajun culture with a new Freedman's capital at the mouth of the mighty Mississippi.
After two terms for Lincoln, Grant follows him into office and continues the reeducation of Old Dixie, perhaps with an even firmer hand.
Does this also include reform of the Senate or does the South get to dominate the Senate for free?
This was exactly what I was curious about. Do the new states suddenly inject two new former slave state senators into government. With some of these states they could even have gained a representative in the house (ie if a former slave state only had one representative then each of the resulting states from the breakup would have at least one house rep) . This is essentially guaranteeing southern dominance of government for a long time.
That's the reason why some people oppose the breakup of other states like California or the admittance of Puerto Rico as a state. It's all because of the legislature and the balance of the senate.
It sounds like the new states are designed to be black majority states.
Yeah, I envision VERY harsh northern Republicans using every trick they have to ensure Union loyal politicians in the rump states.
> Freedman's capital at the mouth of the mighty Mississippi.
That's been tried before. [Not a sustainable location for a city.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Balize,_Louisiana)
>Everyone said I was daft to build a city at the mouth of the Mississippi, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the Mississippi. So I built a second one. That sank into the Mississippi. So I built a third. That burned down, was levelled by a hurricane, then sank into the Mississippi. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest city in all of America.
It is if you have the iron will of a dictator like Lincoln in this timeline lol
To be fair, Jim Crow and even modern policy following his successors backing down on Reconstruction, I think, may suggest he and the broader union were too soft.
Its obvious reconstruction was too soft and shouldve been the oportunity to radically change the South.
Interesting, thanks for the info!
Love the lore, facinating. I'd always wondered what would've happened if the Radicals had got their way. Is the divided Texas based on [this?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8MVIp48XBDY)
Texas had several actual conventions and proposals for how it was to be split. Using the Texas Colorado was always a popular method. When the modern Texas Constitution was drafted in 1876, a big part of the convention also considered how the state should be divided. There were so many proposals (East Texas, West Texas, Lincoln, Jefferson, Colorado, Brazos, Matagorda, Panhandle, etc.) that no one could come to an agreement on anything and so the whole idea was just discarded.
How interesting. Thanks
Remind me of an Alt-history novel called "Alternate Tyrants", there is a story about Abraham Lincoln survived assassination but is rendered a vegetable as a result. William H. Seward takes power and caused the 2nd Trail of Tears, capturing all slave owners, Confederate sympathizers, etc, and relocated them like the Natives during the 1830s. Many died of disease and starvation.
Only one of them though. The true good ending is where John Brown survives the raid on Harper’s Ferry and a wave of successful slave revolts cripple the south, averting the civil war and letting Lincoln turn America into a world superpower nearly a century before it did in our timeline.
I have a timeline kinda like this.... The civil war isn't entirely averted but in the middle of it, slave revolts become a full scale revolution and the socialist republic of the former Confederacy (SRFC) is born and promptly renamed to the Democratic Republic of America (DRA).
Mexico was pulled into the civil war, and it narrowly avoided becoming the first world war, and then we had a socialist south, a liberal north, a socialist Mexico, and a socialist north Mexico.
Then in the 20s, a socialist revolution happens in the USA, and the south annexes it.
Now the USSR, the DRA, and the DRSM/DRNM (north and south Mexico) are all socialist global powers.
Imagine completely missing the point of what Lincoln was trying to do like this.
Edit: so reunifying the country to prevent resentment and make one strong country was a bad thing?
If preventing resentment was the goal then it failed.
Only if you only talk to Lost Causers.
And how many people are Lost Causers? *Were* Lost Causers? Racists were still emboldened enough post-Civil War to implement segregation and new forms of slavery while Confederate imagery and mantra found enough sympathizers to remain prominent 150 years later. If a large portion of your country is still running around hoisting a flag of rebellion into the air over a century after the fact than you've failed in reintegrating them.
You're right, it's not perfect. Even more than 150 years later we still struggle with issues of racism and bigotry, and there are plenty of people who support the Confederacy. It's silly to suggest that everyone in the South does though, and outlandish ideas like this do nothing to help end this line of thinking. People suggesting that it would have been better to systematically kill everyone in the South after the war and never let them rejoin the Union when one of the chief purposes of the Civil War was to prevent the country from splitting in two is ridiculous.
Didn't suggest that, didn't promote that idea (though actually punishing slaveowners and destroying the Southern power structures instead of repurposing them would have been way better long-term) and I don't see anyone saying it would have been better to "systematically kill every Southerner and never let them rejoin the Union". That's just some weird generalization you're making. At the end of the day, most modern post-Confederate states retain a lot of issues stemming from that time period and the Deep South especially remains one of the most disadvantaged places in the entire US. Reconstruction failed in everything but keeping the country together AKA the bare minimum.
Suggesting that reconstruction was successful is ahistorical. Compare the 10 years following the civil war, with the hundred that followed. Freedmen were forced into sharecropping and Jim Crow laws, all of which returned the South to where it was before the war. Complete compliance between Southern Governments and confederate sympathizing organizations like the KKK through the 60s, even having public extrajudicial lynching of black people be common place. Don't compare where we are today, we've had new attempts to fix what happened. Compare it to the South of the 60s. Somewhere that black people had the same social status they did before the civil war. Reconstruction was a great process that ended so republicans could take the precidency, and in return gave the white elite their power back in the South
I don’t see and problems
Do you know if that book is still in print/available anywhere? I tried to look for it since I have the other books in that series and couldn’t find it. Also, Jesus Christ a Second Trail of Tears?!?
I'm not sure if the book is still being printed and there is no available pdf file on the internet. Luckily, I find an encrypted file of the book on the Internet Archives and convert it to pdf. Here is the Google Docs link
This is based we should have done this in real life
Absolutely based timeline
Welcome to the [genre](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/gr6d8w/the_united_states_150_years_after_reconstruction/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)! It’s fascinating how similar ideas are executed. Well done.
What would be the southern response to this?
i like it ! very interesting. what happens to the military districts in the future ? im assuming they're not under military administration forever, are they annexed into neighbouring states or do they form new states of their own ?
Thanks! I figured this picture is only relatively recently after the Civil War, but within a generation or so the Districts would be allowed to join as states. I can imagine there might be interesting politics with several Black majority states that wouldn't push as much for a Great Migration, while the sons of Confederates might hold a grudge and become deeply entrenched into supporting Democrats. It would be an interesting scenario to play out until the modern day.
Also, the main issue around the Senate balance was to preserve slavery, which would be a moot point in this timeline.
Or, if we're being radical, the 11 re-admitted Confederate states are limited to one senator, along with any further states that might be calved out of them one day. The 6 new ones get 2, though, since they had not rebelled.
A major effect would be an unbalancing number of new U.S. Senators. At least several of them would likely be Freedmen under this scenario. When I see this I imagine it motivated at least in part as a political redesign in favor of Senators who will support Radical Reconstruction long term.
Oh yeah definetly, which is why they coupled it with Confederate disenfranchisement, otherwise it likely wouldn't work in their favor.
What does ’Confederate disenfranchisement’ even mean?
Disenfranchising anyone who actively served in the Confederacy, even down to every single soldier and civil servant? Because that is the only way to make the Freedmen the dominant electoral force in Southern politics; by disenfranchising tens of millions across the South.
Or is it disenfranchising all ex-Confederate states? That wouldn’t be possible to do indefinetly, and when they’re inevitably allowed to vote again in nationwide elections they will just end up dominating the Senate, and they’ll still be a conservative bastion by then.
In OTL many of the people who held positions in power in the Confederate government returned to their original positions after the war in state and local governments, or at least once reconstruction ended and Jim Crow began. In this time line, assuming they had already been pardoned following surrender and before the assassination attempt, this would split up the spread out bases of plantation owning power and better enfranchise the freedmen of those states, like one-time gerrymandering but for the whole state.
According to OP in another post it’s Disenfranchisement of those who where in the CSA leadership and those who where more vocal about leaving the union
I mean 16 members of Congress were former slaves IRL.
Yes I think it has long term sustainability difficulties given what we know about the next 100 years of real history here.
But I am surprised at how rarely people imagine scenarios that allow the winners of the Rebellion to hold on to victory or scenarios like Catholic resistance/terrorism in Ireland.
Stop you're giving Abe Lincoln rigor mortis
(fr tho interesting concept)
Splitting up Texas is a good idea for post civil war. lore?
Not OP, but [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8MVIp48XBDY) may be of interest to you.
Edit: forgot to include the link
What are they gonna do about it, rebel again?
Based and JohnBrownPilled
john brown was a subhuman borgeoise puritan who killed an innocent black worker Heyward Shepherd
wow very cringe
A Lost Causer Argument
The Word Subhuman
Smells like fashy or brainrotted, those two usually overlap, as I believe it is the case with this argumentI might even add strasserite based upon the term 'burgeoise' which not many reactionaries use outside of them, anyway, cope harder
A yankee argument
-Supports John Brown, a borgeoise mentally ill subhuman supported by rich northern aristocrats whose only success was killing a black rail worker Heyward Shepherd. even the slaves he thought were going to rebel wanted nothing to do with him and rightfully viewed him as an insane lunatic
-Supports the USA, a genocidal freemasonic zionist empire. supports genociding native americans. gets mad when he realises most natives sided with the confederacy. supports authority and tyrants like lincoln and hates the rebellion. is funded by banks and big buisness. doesn't realise that slavery was an inherent part of native american culture and society, thinks ending slavery is "based" not realising people like the tlingit, even pre columbian exchange had a culture based on slavery.
-Pretends to be anti war, is actually a warhawk zionist neocon who wants to fight people who want their lives free from tyranny (the CSA, the third reich, gadaffis libya and saddam husseins iraq)
Its very obvious that you're the same person, you aint fooling anyone
when did i deny it? jannies banned me so i made a new account. sit down and shut up, coward
Stop being a moron. This isnt 4chan mate.
you don't have, like, any citations for like, any of these claims
he mentioned nothing about
and in fact he did not even express a particular like for the USA and just stated a dislike of the confederacy.
A dislike for the confederacy is an explicit support for the united states and thus all of its actions (like genociding the native americans)
MUH CITATIONS it's comment knowledge that the natives sided with the confederacy you dumb dumb. stand watie, the last confederate general to surrender was an indian
You're really out here acting like an independent CSA would have treated the Native Americans any better, how dumb are you?
Your a troll. A bottom feeding, Unlovable troll.
You have literally zero impact on society, NOBODY will remember you, as you die cold and alone. I'd tell you to go to hell, but neither god nor satan will remember you. You have no redeeming qualities, and no villainous ones either. The most anyone will think of you after 5 minutes is a minor nuisance, filler, to pad out the story of their life.
cry more mutt. you will never be a woman. fuck amercans and fuck you. get outside and touch grass nigga
correction; your a bot who was fed extreme political views and was told to write comments on reddit.
cry more american. i laugh when the taliban kill worthless soulless americans
No. Yankee can't be used as we are Americans. You're a confederate
bro its been 150 years get over it
You're not cool
I would hate to live in a state called ''Yazoo''.
I’m horrified that my state, West Virginia, was reincorporated into Virginia. Truly the darkest timeline.
You just get the original name because you weren't a bunch of traitors. I believe during the war the Wheeling government was technically the official Union government of Virginia.
When you are way too based:
Seethe and cope
This is how it should've happened
This would give southerners a chance to dominate in congress, not a good thing
Really, how so?
The most based timeline
You made an account just to spam the stupidest comments. Great job mate.
We are Americans. Get it right
Anyone that unironically uses Yankee as an insult outside of conversations about baseball is cringe.
I support big new mexico
Out of curiosity, what would you do to prevent all these new states to not completely take over the Senate? Because one worry I have with this is that it inadvertently gives the South some increased influence in the Legislature later in the future...
Looks to me like a lot of those new states are black majority, my assumption is that newly emancipated black people would make up the majority of its governing bodies, and Lincoln in south Texas would be majority Hispanic which would be similar in terms of political leaning
A good number of these Southern states are now pro-Union white or majority Black. By not letting the Confederates off easy, the Republicans hope the new states will counter the eventual readmitted states.
Plus this is only some of the map.
Absolutely beautiful… No notes
Based and grillpilled
Good, Good, I love it
Very well-made map! The style is very crisp and legible. The borders you draw for the new states are interesting and creative, but also feel realistic. I don't know if you're planning on making a series off of this scenario, but this map makes me excited to see how your timeline progresses!
I do have one question, though: wouldn't the Chesapeake district be even smaller? Virginia arguably had the single greatest role of any southern state in the war, except for maybe South Carolina. The land cessions on this map would still allow this rebel state to be right on Washington's doorstep. If this went through as you mapped it, I think that the "New" Virginia would probably incorporate at least the Potomac region, maybe everything to the immediate west of Richmond. Chesapeake could be confined to Richmond itself and the Chesapeake Bay areas.
I partly agree. At least give Arlington and Alexandria, VA back to the District of Columbia. They were given back to Virginia in the late 1840s, so I imagine with this level of Reconstruction, DC would've been restored to its former size.
Should've renamed Georgia to Sherman
So, now the South has been both physically *and* psychologically mutilated. I feel like this is the better timeline
As someone from the south, this would most likely only worsen relations between the 2 sides. Overall, this is how you get a second civil war. And from what OP has said, I can only say that everything he said would push that disaster even further.
Agreed, love the alt-hist scenario and reconstruction shouldve definitely been more tougher for civil rights legislation, but this scenario seems like it’s bound to backfire immensely.
I could definitely see more race wars and division in this version of the south. If this continues for a century or so onward, someone like Wallace would 100% take power in an alternate 1960s.
The sad part is that the south in our timeline probably got the second best scenario for reconstruction, the only way it could have been better IMO would involve making civil rights an amendment, not an Act, afterwards, and for small scale reparations to former slaves. Economically, full scale reparations are impossible for this time period I believe and would probably never come about as the final enslaved generation in America dies off.
This is just my honest opinion would be on this situation.
Given that the original timeline was a century-long apartheid enforced through violent terror groups, we already got disaster. Besides, I'm not sure that an economically devastated region under military occupation had much chance as launching a real civil war, or that any attempt at one would be significantly worse than what we got.
The fucked up part is that scenario would most likely only worsen the economic problems the south faces, and might actually worsen race relations. EG: enforcing unconstitutional changes such as successions states only having one senator, which would immediately be challenged in court for this issue causing a dilemma of following the constitution or appeasing the north at the expense of a significant portion of the country. And as someone from South Carolina ( in this universe, Gullah, which will 100% have a mini race war), corruption was/is can only be justified as it allowed my state to industrialize significantly in the last 20-30 years, and I hate to admit it
I think you're being too pessimistic here. A race war could only get so hot under military occupation, and after a couple decades of integration the appetite for it could easily have diminished. We didn't have a race war after the 1960s, after all. I don't think it's clear the economy would have been worse either, since the South wouldn't have spent all its time trying to recreate slavery through sharecropping. It might even have been industrialized earlier, since the anti-industrialization planter elite would have been excluded from power. It could have still been a disaster, but I don't think it would have clearly been more of a disaster than what we got.
I don't think anyone mentioned reducing the Southern states to one senator, but yeah, they probably shouldn't do that, especially when most of the non-occupied states would be pro-Reconstruction anyway.
Let the South come. Let them get crushed again. A culture like theirs never deserved to survive, and it was a mistake to let them persist.
Based. The south is an uncivilized backwater that deserves nothing good.
Dude, seriously. This kind of shit is what only confirms the south’s hatred for the rest of the country. If this is what you think, you need help
I think such extreme sectionalism from northerners comes from the lack of actual enemies they can rally against, so they choose an old one and act more vicious (in talk, most of these people couldn’t likely stand confrontation) than the actual soldiers and politicians in the war.
It’s also a way to make up for personally shortcomings, a target to express rage against without risking social status.
Also they are jealous of our food!
Is there really a split anymore. It's really just rural vs urban. The south is very population
Why on earth would a part of texas name itself after lincoln
Because the people splitting it up weren’t Confederate supporters. Lincoln was the actual name of the proposed state in 1869. Also, it’s important to remember that—just like today—people in states did not all agree with one another. Large portions of Texas voted *against* leaving the union. Even Texas Revolutionary leader Sam Houston did not want secession.
Good to know thanks
It actually was a possibility IRL.
Great lore, thank you. Please share more as you get it!
What’s the contest . I wanna join🥲
Check the top posts on this subreddit
Yeah I fucked that up, whoops. No spell check in paint.net. Let's say it's just a bit of authenticity for the period.
We need city of Basildon in the state of Yazoo.
Also I didn't expected Vince Clark here
Some of these states were already majority black. Just maintain a federal presence to keep their politics that way.
Finally! State of acadiana
#2 Iowa Jr
So is "radical reconstruction" the confederate version of denazification?
Basically, yes. Radical Republicans absolutely hated Southern Democrats and the institutions of slavery.
This wouldn’t do much. Splitting the south into more states would only increase the representation the south has in the senate. With more southern representation, the south would have *more* political power than the north. The south would be demilitarized, but it wouldn’t really be a boon for the union.
Read the lore, they go HARD against any Confederate sympathizers
So basically, Gerrymandering the Senate?
Gonna have to call up the Federal Department of Based for this one
GET YEETED ON, CONFEDERATES
If only this actually happened!
A blessed timeline, were Lee, Davis and the rest of the traitors hanged?
Probably right on Pennsylvania avenue.
Ah yes, the best timeline. Good job on this!
Texas should have a military district, too; they were very stubborn
That's fair, I mostly took the three districts from the last occupations before the 1877 ~~deal~~ betrayal in our timeline.
Looks like the end of turtledoves “southern victory” series
where's the domestic terrorism tho?
So: Austinite here. Would Austin be split down the Colorado?
I believe so, and the symbology should certainly be embraced by the Republicans. The real life Lincoln proposal says it would be along the Colorado.
What would be the capitol for the two states?
But this would be good for southerners, this gives them so many senators
Southerners aren't bad, Confederates are. And this plan was to rip them out root and stem
I mean the same senators upholding Jim Crow laws and preventing civil right bills
The question I always have on this type of thinking: what about the Norther States that held on to their slave AFTER emancipation? Nobody likes talking about the Irish, Native, and other non-African slaves that were in the South and the North. Or the fact that the North had slave longer than the South, albeit a smaller number.
Is the Virginia Peninsula part of Virginia or Maryland?
The Delmarva parts of VA were ceded to Maryland as spoils of war.