It seems to me that, in the recent annals of post-1900, an idea that was rather implausible to begin with has become so widespread that it is now an overused cliche. This is the theory that the US will immediately fall apart at the drop of a hat if TR's reforms fail to happen, or if the labor movement is treated slightly more harshly. Frequently, not only is the government overthrown (to be replaced with socialism, syndicalism, or what have you), America flat-out balkanizes into around six independent nations. Even discounting the fact that this idea so widespread that it is sucking the creative oxygen out of the period, it is implausible to begin with. The US had a strong national identity, and most were satisfied with the current order of things. Did Bryan's defeat in 1896 cause massive disorder and violence? I thought not. Secondly, the proposed PODs (in most cases) aren't enough to cause a rapid de-legitimization of the federal government. A few unchecked robber barons here, a few suppressed strikes there, and five years later there's another Civil War? Real collapses stem from a multitude of factors, and in this case, most of the usual ones (like foreign defeat, economic decline, and the erosion of government capacity) simply aren't present. Even if we allow for widespread discontent, no alternative to the liberal democratic capitalist system was popular enough to be viable as the basis for a revolution. Finally, even if all the factors for civil war were present, there isn't enough time to go from business as usual in 1900 to total collapse in around 1910 or so, which is the average date chosen in these maps and TLs. The factors for internal strife take time to develop, and to go in around decade from a stable democratic government to revolution and possible balkanization where the PODs are usually nothing but the continuation of the economic structure of the 1890s, with a bit more labor unrest, seems very implausible to me. Thoughts?