Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

Not necessarily. In the modern European Union, there are large metropolitan areas that sit astride national borders, such as Strasbourg or the Ruhr area along the Rhineland. Since the creation of the Schengen Area, someone can live in the Netherlands yet work in Germany, for example. And I'm sure that in this scenario there aren't customs checkpoints along the borders between the commonwealths, so you could have a similar situation. Or if not, you could break off Fairfield County, CT and put it with the New York commonwealth (or whatever it'd be called) in exchange for territory upstate (such as counties adjoining Lake Champlain perhaps?)

The difference is that those suburbs developed over time as the EU did. Here, you would be cutting entire metro areas in half, which would force people to pay additional levels of taxes. New York alone would've been much too small to have been a commonwealth. And with New York, New England would get all the benefits Upstate New York already gets from New York City.

[Dom Jao II]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

The difference is that those suburbs developed over time as the EU did. Here, you would be cutting entire metro areas in half, which would force people to pay additional levels of taxes. New York alone would've been much too small to have been a commonwealth. And with New York, New England would get all the benefits Upstate New York already gets from New York City.

Benefits economically, yes, but politically Upstate is much more Conservative than Downstate, and The City usually overrules any opinions Upstaters may have.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by Dom Jao II

Benefits economically, yes, but politically Upstate is much more Conservative than Downstate, and The City usually overrules any opinions Upstaters may have.

I don't think too very much of New England would disagree too terribly much with New York City as a whole.

[VT45]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

The difference is that those suburbs developed over time as the EU did. Here, you would be cutting entire metro areas in half, which would force people to pay additional levels of taxes. New York alone would've been much too small to have been a commonwealth. And with New York, New England would get all the benefits Upstate New York already gets from New York City.

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that New Yorkers and New Englanders generally can't stand each other. The one exception are regions of western Connecticut. What you're doing is the equivalent of combining France and Germany into a single polity, calling it France, and putting the economic and political centres in Berlin. It won't work. Rather than having New York be a commonwealth on its own, just split the existing Commonwealth of New England in two: the six states forming the Commonwealth of New England, and New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware forming a second commonwealth. That would work much better.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that New Yorkers and New Englanders generally can't stand each other. The one exception are regions of western Connecticut. What you're doing is the equivalent of combining France and Germany into a single polity, calling it France, and putting the economic and political centres in Berlin. It won't work. Rather than having New York be a commonwealth on its own, just split the existing Commonwealth of New England in two: the six states forming the Commonwealth of New England, and New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware forming a second commonwealth. That would work much better.

It would've, maybe. It would've been on the small end population-wise. But New England would've been solid Democratic and New York would've been a swing commonwealth--as it is--at best. Republicans weren't too keen on letting that happen.

And everyone else agreed that New York in New England was a decent proposal.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

It would've, maybe. It would've been on the small end population-wise. But New England would've been solid Democratic and New York would've been a swing commonwealth--as it is--at best. Republicans weren't too keen on letting that happen.

And everyone else agreed that New York in New England was a decent proposal.

But Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey? Not so much. Splitting it in two would work much better.

[Noravea]

Originally Posted by Dom Jao II

If Anything it should be Called Greater New York!

Yes! Greater New York shall be an Empire never imagined before! I shall proclaim myself Emperor of New York! All shall kneel before me, and we shall crush the barbarian tribes of Penn's Woods and New Angloland!

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by trollhole

But Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey? Not so much. Splitting it in two would work much better.

Yes it does, politically. The Democrats already had one safe commonwealth (Pacifica). The Republicans had one (Dixie). Every other one was decently mixed enough to make them purple. Have just New England and Greater New York, the Democrats get another safe commonwealth and there's another purple commonwealth. Greater New England would be sufficiently purple. Republicans (and off-world politicians who felt there were already too many terrestrial commonwealths) didn't like a New England and Greater New York split.

[VT45]

People thinking that New England is safe Democratic don't really understand how New England politics work. New Hampshire and Maine, at least in congressional elections, swing pretty regularly. The outer suburbs of Boston also tend to be quite conservative. Hell, people think that New Hampshire is the most right-wing region of New England? No: Wrentham, MA, is. Southeastern Massachusetts is also pretty solidly conservative outside of the big cities of Fall River and New Bedford. All that considered, New England in its own right would well be considered a purple, if leaning Democratic, commonwealth.

But believe me. New Englanders would rather leave the Union than agree to the commonwealth proposal you've put forward. They would feel frustrated at being dominated by New York and Philadelphia. The New Englanders would be outnumbered almost 3 to 1. The self-determination sentiment that exists today (which is mostly concentrated on the idea of autonomy) would be greatly amplified, leading to an increasingly dysfunctional commonwealth.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

People thinking that New England is safe Democratic don't really understand how New England politics work. New Hampshire and Maine, at least in congressional elections, swing pretty regularly. The outer suburbs of Boston also tend to be quite conservative. Hell, people think that New Hampshire is the most right-wing region of New England? No: Wrentham, MA, is. Southeastern Massachusetts is also pretty solidly conservative outside of the big cities of Fall River and New Bedford. All that considered, New England in its own right would well be considered a purple, if leaning Democratic, commonwealth.

But believe me. New Englanders would rather leave the Union than agree to the commonwealth proposal you've put forward. They would feel frustrated at being dominated by New York and Philadelphia. The New Englanders would be outnumbered almost 3 to 1. The self-determination sentiment that exists today (which is mostly concentrated on the idea of autonomy) would be greatly amplified, leading to an increasingly dysfunctional commonwealth.

I think you're being a bit over dramatic with this here. Ultimately, this is a different TL, different society, different culture, different people. There are political, economic and cultural considerations that completely change things from how they would be in OTL.

[VT45]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

I think you're being a bit over dramatic with this here. Ultimately, this is a different TL, different society, different culture, different people. There are political, economic and cultural considerations that completely change things from how they would be in OTL.

Well, when was the POD? Cos the feelings that would be amplified go way back. New Englanders are the petulant children of the Northeast, and have been for literally centuries. People usually think that the South are the ones that are the petulant children, but we've got them beat. We tried seceding four times in the nineteenth century, and the shift of commerce from Boston to New York in the 18th and 19th centuries are still a point of contention, and the underlying cause of why New Yorkers and New Englanders still don't like each other. Believe be, if the POD is any later than about 1800, you're going to have to deal with those issues. They won't be butterflied away.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

Well, when was the POD? Cos the feelings that would be amplified go way back. New Englanders are the petulant children of the Northeast, and have been for literally centuries. People usually think that the South are the ones that are the petulant children, but we've got them beat. We tried seceding four times in the nineteenth century, and the shift of commerce from Boston to New York in the 18th and 19th centuries are still a point of contention, and the underlying cause of why New Yorkers and New Englanders still don't like each other. Believe be, if the POD is any later than about 1800, you're going to have to deal with those issues. They won't be butterflied away.

Roughly the 1920's. But that doesn't matter. What does is that Convention was pressured to limit the number of terrestrial commonwealths they could create and to create as many swing commonwealths as possible. Creating Greater New England was the best the Convention could do given their constraints.

And ultimately its a world that's seen a U.S.-Nazi-Soviet cold war, an Anglo-American war in the Fifties, a minor alien invasion and pioneer spirit forcing more people off world. It's kind of a different place.

[VT45]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

Roughly the 1920's. But that doesn't matter. What does is that Convention was pressured to limit the number of terrestrial commonwealths they could create and to create as many swing commonwealths as possible. Creating Greater New England was the best the Convention could do given their constraints.

And ultimately its a world that's seen a U.S.-Nazi-Soviet cold war, an Anglo-American war in the Fifties, a minor alien invasion and pioneer spirit forcing more people off world. It's kind of a different place.

Can I see a map of the Commonwealths? Cos with borders this old, you're going to run into snags like the one we've been debating. I'm sure there's a compromise we can make here, since as I said these are deep-rooted feelings that do rub off on any immigrant groups to New England within a few generations. It's the same as the old 'more Han than the Han' idea. New England is a special case, as it is the only region in America, and this was as true before the POD as after it, that is defined by its people and culture. The Convention will have to take that into account when creating the commonwealths.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

Can I see a map of the Commonwealths? Cos with borders this old, you're going to run into snags like the one we've been debating. I'm sure there's a compromise we can make here, since as I said these are deep-rooted feelings that do rub off on any immigrant groups to New England within a few generations. It's the same as the old 'more Han than the Han' idea. New England is a special case, as it is the only region in America, and this was as true before the POD as after it, that is defined by its people and culture. The Convention will have to take that into account when creating the commonwealths.

Kind of a rough map. Not entirely sure what to do with West Virginia. Hispanic population to the United States is also significantly lower, mostly due to militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border due to the ugliness of the Second Mexican War. So the population of the southwest is smaller than it would be in OTL.

[VT45]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

Kind of a rough map. Not entirely sure what to do with West Virginia. Hispanic population to the United States is also significantly lower, mostly due to militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border due to the ugliness of the Second Mexican War. So the population of the southwest is smaller than it would be in OTL.

Well, I'd suggest splitting the mountain commonwealth between the plains commonwealth and Pacifica. Say, give Pacifica Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, and give the plains commonwealth Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Put West Virginia in Dixie, and then split the northeastern commonwealth into New England and the Mid-Atlantic. I do have to ask though: wouldn't smaller more numerous terrestrial commonwealths benefit the offworld colonies? I mean, think of the power difference there would be between OTL Austria in the European Union, and all the constituent parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire if it were a single member of the EU.

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

Well, I'd suggest splitting the mountain commonwealth between the plains commonwealth and Pacifica. Say, give Pacifica Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, and give the plains commonwealth Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. Put West Virginia in Dixie, and then split the northeastern commonwealth into New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

West Virginia would not work well in Dixie for much the same reasons why you think New York wouldn't work well in New England. Plains, Mountains and Pacifica are much too varied to be lumped into three. Colorado has more in common with California and New Mexico than it does with the Dakotas.

Originally Posted by VulcanTrekkie45

I do have to ask though: wouldn't smaller more numerous terrestrial commonwealths benefit the offworld colonies? I mean, think of the power difference there would be between OTL Austria in the European Union, and all the constituent parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire if it were a single member of the EU.

Not really an apt analogy. You wouldn't be able to count on the contituent parts of A-H sticking together and looking out for each other's best interests. You would expect that of the terrestrial commonwealths. And since the President is elected by the commonwealths and not the states, it would give the terrestrial states less of an advantage, and give the offworld commonwealths more of a voice. Still very much a work in progress, but I'm not really buying any argument against Greater New England.

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

Not really an apt analogy. You wouldn't be able to count on the contituent parts of A-H sticking together and looking out for each other's best interests. You would expect that of the terrestrial commonwealths. And since the President is elected by the commonwealths and not the states, it would give the terrestrial states less of an advantage, and give the offworld commonwealths more of a voice. Still very much a work in progress, but I'm not really buying any argument against Greater New England.

The thing is, once you get into the cultural "group" you're forming with Greater New England, well, honestly, Maryland and Delaware and, arguably, a significant part of Virginia fit better into that than into "Dixie", and once you've switched those you might as well call it "Atlantica" or "Eastern Seaboard"

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by Elessar267

The thing is, once you get into the cultural "group" you're forming with Greater New England, well, honestly, Maryland and Delaware and, arguably, a significant part of Virginia fit better into that than into "Dixie", and once you've switched those you might as well call it "Atlantica" or "Eastern Seaboard"

Much of that shift is modern and with a PoD in the early 20th century, it would remain more Southern and more tied to Dixie. A commonwealth that big would simply not work. The goal was to create as equal commonwealths as possible, both geographically and population-wise.

[VT45]

Originally Posted by Archangel Michael

Not really an apt analogy. You wouldn't be able to count on the contituent parts of A-H sticking together and looking out for each other's best interests. You would expect that of the terrestrial commonwealths. And since the President is elected by the commonwealths and not the states, it would give the terrestrial states less of an advantage, and give the offworld commonwealths more of a voice. Still very much a work in progress, but I'm not really buying any argument against Greater New England.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you all night. A commonwealth consisting of New England and the Mid-Atlantic would fracture, with both sides looking out for themselves, and not for each other's best interests. The Mid-Atlantic wouldn't take kindly to being called 'New England,' as that would make them feel like they have no cultural identity of their own. New England would feel insignificant and ignored, as the economic, demographic, and political centres of the commonwealth bearing its name would be located outside of New England.

You mentioned me by name in the OP, probably because you wanted me to see this. Well, I'm giving you the lay of the land as it's stood for literally centuries, before Colorado and the rest were even territories, and you're dismissing it as getting butterflied away, while more ephemeral differences, such as between Colorado and Kansas, remain cemented. It doesn't make any sense.

Also, and I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, they tried combining the precise area into a single polity before in OTL. The Dominion of New England existed for all of three years before it tore itself apart because people from the constituent parts couldn't get along. Throughout colonial history, there have been points where the New England colonies have been willing to go to war with New York and Pennsylvania, most recently during the 1780s. When you have two parts of a single commonwealth that are willing to go to war with one another, or have a history of doing so, you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.

[Elessar267]

And for the next in my series, featuring the saga of the Holy See: