AHC: Less States in USA for same area

That's pretty crazy. It would have been a mess to organize a functional state out of those two parts as travel between them would have been a headache. It was a lot easier to travel from Massachusetts to Maine than that.
That's why in 1800 they made a deal to give it up. But they originally claimed an extension of their northern and southern boundaries across northern PA, Ohio, Indiana, and so forth theoretically to the Pacific Ocean, realistically to the Mississippi (deals with NY created a gap where NY existed).

The Yankee-Pennamite War during the ARW was one of the bloodiest of the so-called "state border wars" that exist in US history (and there's a lot). The Continental Congress was able to get CT to agree to give up northern PA and PA agreed to ratify CT settlers land claims. That loss led them to give up the rest of their strip excluding the area around Cleveland, called the Western Reserve (yes, the college is named for it) which they used as a way to pay veterans with land grants. With some changes CT could have won and continued to hold the entire strip. Chicago, Connecticut has a nice ring to it.
 
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
Does that mean that all US is one centralised state? That might be fun. Perhaps Lincoln decides during the civil war that these states are way too independent and powerful, so he welds the entire country into one unit where every level of administration has to conform to the nationwide pattern.
 
Does that mean that all US is one centralised state? That might be fun. Perhaps Lincoln decides during the civil war that these states are way too independent and powerful, so he welds the entire country into one unit where every level of administration has to conform to the nationwide pattern.

Didn't mean to imply it was that unitary. More that, rather than OTL association of more or less unitary states, the URA is more an association of associations, like a slightly stronger EU.
 
Does that mean that all US is one centralised state? That might be fun. Perhaps Lincoln decides during the civil war that these states are way too independent and powerful, so he welds the entire country into one unit where every level of administration has to conform to the nationwide pattern.

there are some pretty serious Constitutional barriers to that...the situation would have to be pretty bad indeed for the Constitution to be so modified.
 
there are some pretty serious Constitutional barriers to that...the situation would have to be pretty bad indeed for the Constitution to be so modified.
Yes any agreement between two or more states needs congressional approval. Once called "treaties" they are now called "interstate compacts", most well-known would the Northeast Dairy Compact regulating milk prices in New England and New York, though I think it has expired. There are others regarding water usage of the Colorado River, and such things as that.
 
Part of the problem by this idea is that the territorial claims of the various states over the Appalachian mountains were not governable. Virginia claimed the entire Old Northwest, New York Claimed a large portion, as did Massachusettes, etc. However, the regions in those states desired independence from the main state due to that distance and separate identity. As we see from the State of Franklin, those revolts were already starting and, as the western provinces continued to grow, power would shift away from the eastern elites and be forced across the mountains. In the times before railroad, telegraph, etc, these regions could not be effectively governed from such remote capitals. You see this again in New Mexico, where the territory was split due to the south and west not being easily governed from Santa Fe.

The Dakotas are the easiest one, but they were split after the proposed annexation of Santo Domingo failed; either way, the GOP wanted 4 new Senators. That makes 49. Of course, Absaroka might end up popping up anyway...

West Virginia is another obvious one. Make that 48.

I suppose the point about Georgia is salient enough; they aren't blocked off by the mountains, and it seems reasonable that they could have maintained their territory to the west. Combine with a more successful West Florida, which removes the ports for the Yazoo. Make it 47.

If Deseret actually shows some functions of sovereignty in the leadup to the Mexican-American war, and applies for annexation to the US all the same, they might be admitted straight-away as a state, with them acquiring an area roughly analogous to the Utah territory at original size, so Nevada is part of it. 46.

New Mexico and Arizona will eventually split; they are too large and, while Arizona is missing the Gadsden, they still possess what will become the Las Vegas region. Even absent gambling, that triangle will become a larger population center. Considering the size of the territory and the remoteness from Santa Fe, it will eventually be split in two for easier management.

However, New Mexico mirght retain a salient to the northeast as it did at first. Perhaps, in compensation for losing Arizona, they gain a bit more of the old Texas claims in what is Colorado. This is enough to make what would become Colorado too small (what with Utah taking half of it already) and as such Colorado isn't formed and it is divided between nearby regions. 45.

That makes it as low as I can imagine without drastic intervention. Tennessee hated being ruled from North Carolina, and wanted to leave. North Carolina hated being ruled by South Carolina, and as such left. Maine hated being ruled from Massachusetts, and as such desired to leave. I repeat myself, but removing the slavery controversy doesn't remove that key part of the issue that is involved.

It is also not so simple as giving up the land and claims either. That land was sold to the federal government, which paid by taking on the various states' war debts. You could butterfly that, of course, but you'll alter the dynamics of the rest of the country's growth, and that may actually hamstring part of it (as hamstrung any Articles of Confederacy US would be).

Your easiest case would be a modern PoD, but that would effectively end the United States as they currently are, as that would abridge the sovereignty of the states as they are today.
 
Top