As it says, create a US made of fewer states but covering the same area (roughly) as OTL USA.
AHC: Less States in USA for same area
- Thread starter The Professor
- Start date
Saphroneth
Banned
The key point here is probably the splitting up of land into states in the West. For it to be the US you've more or less got to have the PoD late enough that the original Thirteen Colonies are more-or-less taken as read, so you're left with the statehoods of territories out west taking place with larger individual states (unless, that is, consolidations take place such as Maine into New Hampshire?)
Maine stays part of Mass. Texas keeps more of its western land, New Mexico doesn't exist and the area is split between Texas and Arizona.
For some Civil War/British-American War/Alien invasion the importance of the old Thirteen Colonies disappear. New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut are merged in the State of New England. New Jersey and Delaware are incorporated from one between New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Virginia keep WV and Kentucky. North Carolina and South Carolina merge in the State of Carolina. Georgia incorporate the territories which in OTL are Mississippi and Alabama. Tennessee is given to Carolina. Florida is like OTL. Louisiana retains the glory of its name and comprehend the OTL state of Louisiana, Arkansas, part of Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska and Kansas, Iowa and Missouri. The Northwest Territories isn't divided and form the State of Indiana. The Dakotas and the part of Minnesota that isn't part of Indiana are the State of Dakota. The rest of Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma are the Sequoyah State. Colorado includes New Mexico. The original Oregon Territory, so Oregon, Washington, Idaho (not all) and a little part of western Montana stay together and form the State of Oregon. The rest of Montana, Wyoming ecc. form a state to which the Congress decide to give the name of the main attraction inside it: Yellowstone. Arizona is like OTL. Nevada is split between Utah (or Deseret, which is the best name?) and California. Hawaii is like OTL. Alaska is like OTL.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Several states came in when they did to balance slavery. Without slavery harder to see Maine, and of course West Virginia.
If NY is adamant about Vermont, then Vermont stays independent and not a state. If the Georgia govt wasn't corrupt and inept in selling Yazoo lands then Georgia doesn't sell to the Federal govt the northern half of Mississippi and Alabama. Mississippi and Alabama ends up as one state, as just the southern half of the two, and probably gets more of the Florida panhandle.
Delaware shared a governor with PA until 1776, could end up becoming part of PA instead if an arrangement can be made with Maryland to offer them something as compensation.
North Carolina didn't have to give up Tennessee.
Virginia could keep Kentucky with a POD during the Articles of Confederation.
Northwest Territory had two possibilities by Madison- 5 states as we have now, or 3 states (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois extended north to Canada).
Can't see a united Dakota since Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska borders were placed there specifically for each state to be the same height. And if it wasnt for the North and South names would anyone even keep proposing they could be one state? Anyone ever propose Nebraska and Kansas be one? (Which is just as likely as the Dakotas)
To have no Alaska you have to have no Hawai'i. They were brought in as a balance. Alaska was thought to be Democratic, and Hawaii Republican (ends up they became the reverse but still a balance). Both territories were on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories and the US had to find something to do with them. Only if there is no Cold War could independence or continued defiance of the UN be an option. As long as they are strategic and the USSR so close they have to become states. So, yes you can get rid of them, but the PoD would have to actually have nothing to do with them, you're messing with other history and they'd be a side effect to get what you want.
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were proposed as two states, the area divided horizontally.
No Mormon religion means a larger Utah, possibly no Nevada, as the western part of Nevada goes to California and Utah keeps the many slices taken over the years for Nevada to be larger.
No Gadsden Purchase and the larger Utah described can result in New Mexico including Arizona (and probably Las Vegas).
No Mormons and larger accepted Utah, could find a way to stop the extralegal Jefferson Territory, and Kansas is able to hold on to the west farther than OTL.
Oklahoma could remain a huge Indian Reservation.
I'm thinking I found enough things to eliminate about 15 states but only by fundamentally changing history. Very few states can be eliminated as easily as "Congress and the people in that state decide not to be a state". Most states non-statehood would have to be eliminated as a side effect of a Greater part of history changing, or effecting a second or third state before, at the same time, or after it. Missouri had to wait almost a year for Maine for instance before becoming a state (Missouri state seal has the wrong date on the emblem because of this)
If NY is adamant about Vermont, then Vermont stays independent and not a state. If the Georgia govt wasn't corrupt and inept in selling Yazoo lands then Georgia doesn't sell to the Federal govt the northern half of Mississippi and Alabama. Mississippi and Alabama ends up as one state, as just the southern half of the two, and probably gets more of the Florida panhandle.
Delaware shared a governor with PA until 1776, could end up becoming part of PA instead if an arrangement can be made with Maryland to offer them something as compensation.
North Carolina didn't have to give up Tennessee.
Virginia could keep Kentucky with a POD during the Articles of Confederation.
Northwest Territory had two possibilities by Madison- 5 states as we have now, or 3 states (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois extended north to Canada).
Can't see a united Dakota since Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska borders were placed there specifically for each state to be the same height. And if it wasnt for the North and South names would anyone even keep proposing they could be one state? Anyone ever propose Nebraska and Kansas be one? (Which is just as likely as the Dakotas)
To have no Alaska you have to have no Hawai'i. They were brought in as a balance. Alaska was thought to be Democratic, and Hawaii Republican (ends up they became the reverse but still a balance). Both territories were on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories and the US had to find something to do with them. Only if there is no Cold War could independence or continued defiance of the UN be an option. As long as they are strategic and the USSR so close they have to become states. So, yes you can get rid of them, but the PoD would have to actually have nothing to do with them, you're messing with other history and they'd be a side effect to get what you want.
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were proposed as two states, the area divided horizontally.
No Mormon religion means a larger Utah, possibly no Nevada, as the western part of Nevada goes to California and Utah keeps the many slices taken over the years for Nevada to be larger.
No Gadsden Purchase and the larger Utah described can result in New Mexico including Arizona (and probably Las Vegas).
No Mormons and larger accepted Utah, could find a way to stop the extralegal Jefferson Territory, and Kansas is able to hold on to the west farther than OTL.
Oklahoma could remain a huge Indian Reservation.
I'm thinking I found enough things to eliminate about 15 states but only by fundamentally changing history. Very few states can be eliminated as easily as "Congress and the people in that state decide not to be a state". Most states non-statehood would have to be eliminated as a side effect of a Greater part of history changing, or effecting a second or third state before, at the same time, or after it. Missouri had to wait almost a year for Maine for instance before becoming a state (Missouri state seal has the wrong date on the emblem because of this)
Have the original colonies keep their western claims. Virginia + Kentucky, NC+ Tennessee, Georgia + Alabama and Miss. Also NY keeps Vermont.
Edit: Ninja'd. Damn.
Edit: Ninja'd. Damn.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Senate in that case would be 12 slave versus 14 free. Now, of course there would be northern senators willing to support slavery as per OTL but Delaware, Maryland, and this super large Virginia may have plenty of reason to end slavery. Slavery may go away peacefully through Congress instead of a president opposed to slavery expansion.
For the colonial era, keep New England as one big colony, keep New Jersey with New York, Delaware a part of Pennsylvania, and Maryland part of Virginia. Just never have them split off for propritetory purposes or New England's local-government tendencies and you're down eight states already.
Skallagrim
Banned
The Carolinas could also remain one single Carolina, although that would need an early POD (prior to 1691).
Jasen777
Donor
The other original states would not be happy with that (nor many of the settlers of those regions for that matter).
The Dakotas never get split, Texas hangs on to everything East of the Rio, Gadsden Purchase never happens and the remainder doesn't get split into two states. Slavery ends with a whimper and Virginia doesn't split. Those are three easy ones.
That too! I'm basically assuming daily life remains the same even if the POD conveniently keeps happening in that world (IE, Colony X never split up).
do we really need TWO Carolinas or TWO Dakotas? Chuckle
On a serious note, the US could have kept one Dakota (it still would have been smaller than Texas (actually half of Texas which is 268,000 square miles vs 150,000 square miles if you merge Dakota together). They were originally one territory. New Mexico and Arizona also started as one territory, so keeping them together is an option. Of course some of the eastern states could be merged, except for the fact that 13 of them were originally colonies so have seniority (as it were). But New Hampshire and Vermont could have been kept together (as a bigger state that still has hardly anyone in it) and since the Federal Government overwhelming owns most of the land in some of the Mountain and Basin states it probably wouldn't have hurt much to merge some of them together too.
On a serious note, the US could have kept one Dakota (it still would have been smaller than Texas (actually half of Texas which is 268,000 square miles vs 150,000 square miles if you merge Dakota together). They were originally one territory. New Mexico and Arizona also started as one territory, so keeping them together is an option. Of course some of the eastern states could be merged, except for the fact that 13 of them were originally colonies so have seniority (as it were). But New Hampshire and Vermont could have been kept together (as a bigger state that still has hardly anyone in it) and since the Federal Government overwhelming owns most of the land in some of the Mountain and Basin states it probably wouldn't have hurt much to merge some of them together too.
TBH, starting out isn't actually that difficult: the Dakotas could have remained a single state with little trouble, as it was mainly a product of GOP political maneuvering IOTL, and Arizona and New Mexico could have been merged as well, and even West Virginia + Nevada butterflied. Beyond that, though, it gets harder to really do without the increasing likelihood of radically changing U.S. history.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Well jeez people, if being in the same territory means you could have been one state then I say let's have Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, North and South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana all as one Missouri? Or Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin as one state? There's a difference between territories that were for organizing purposes and territories meant for statehood. And one Dakota was never meant to be. Ever. Just because two states have the same name doesn't mean squat. Some ideas like the Carolina union seem to not even consider what the POD would be... how do you stop Albemarle Sound from being radically different than Charles Town and simply not wanting to be governed from there? Some ideas may sound doable, but when you think of how you would make a PoD it sounds like handwavium because the pod would have to be convoluted and complex, and not so much a simple one change (which is preferable than having to say "we change this, and that, and those people, oh and this event too)
Some interesting ideas.
People doing well to point out the some splits in territory are more likely than others.
Quite intrigued by the preARW POD creating dominions of states that become independent - think I did a flag challenge entry using the idea of a United Regions of America
People doing well to point out the some splits in territory are more likely than others.
Quite intrigued by the preARW POD creating dominions of states that become independent - think I did a flag challenge entry using the idea of a United Regions of America