AHC/WI: North & South Carolina recombine

I posted a similar thread a few weeks ago but I figured I'd start afresh. Sorry if the premise is too familiar.

With a POD of 1783, what possible avenues could lead to North and South Carolina recombining, either in the colonial pre-ratification era or anytime afterwards, maybe Reconstruction? I know that both regions had over 200,000 people when they joined the Union, but I also know both have struggled economically at various times in their history. Thoughts?
 
Reconstruction might not be the best of times for it. If the Radical Republicans are in charge, they might just try to make sure the African-American electorate in South Carolina wasn't murdered or disenfranchised, making the state an assures area of Unoin support among a sea of CSA veterans.
 
Reconstruction might not be the best of times for it. If the Radical Republicans are in charge, they might just try to make sure the African-American electorate in South Carolina wasn't murdered or disenfranchised, making the state an assures area of Unoin support among a sea of CSA veterans.

Fair enough. What about earlier, then? I'm trying to narrow it down as best I can to minimize major butterflies down the road. I can't find any precedent for already-separated territories getting merged in this fashion, but I'm trying to avoid any changes prior to 1783 as I mentioned in my OP.
 
Fair enough. What about earlier, then? I'm trying to narrow it down as best I can to minimize major butterflies down the road. I can't find any precedent for already-separated territories getting merged in this fashion, but I'm trying to avoid any changes prior to 1783 as I mentioned in my OP.
I'm afraid union wouldn't help them during any economic struggles, as mentioned in the first post. If two people are struggling to stay above water, having one grab onto the other isn't very helpful. Just two less senate seats and thousands of fewer jobs from the state governments. Shame the POD limit wasn't an extra six years back or so, as you might have went for a regional confederation of North, South, and West Carolina.
 
Fair enough. What about earlier, then? I'm trying to narrow it down as best I can to minimize major butterflies down the road. I can't find any precedent for already-separated territories getting merged in this fashion, but I'm trying to avoid any changes prior to 1783 as I mentioned in my OP.

The problem is that, per the federal Constitution, a state's borders can only be changed with the consent of its legislature. And because of the Senate's construction, merger reduces the power of a state, so you're unlikely to find a state legislature that will voluntarily reduce its power on the nation stage by consolidating with another state.

Which is why, without a colonial boundary change, your best -- and probably only -- chance to redraw state borders is in the aftermath of the Civil War using Reconstruction as your pretext. That still requires the non-Lincolnian wing of the Republican Party to win the debate on the question of the status of the Southern states, but that's at least something you can finagle with the right PoD. Said debate being whether the Confederacy had in fact seceded: If it had, then the states had forfeited their rights under the Constitution and could be subjected to whatever terms Congress deemed appropriate for their readmission, as well as being subject to border reconfiguration as if they were any other Territory. (Thaddeus Stevens was probably the most vociferous advocate of that position.) Lincoln and his fellow-travelers were of the opinion that the Confederacy had not in fact seceded and, as such, were still to be afforded all of the rights and protections granted them by the Constitution, including the veto over the redrawing of their frontiers.
 
I'm afraid union wouldn't help them during any economic struggles, as mentioned in the first post. If two people are struggling to stay above water, having one grab onto the other isn't very helpful. Just two less senate seats and thousands of fewer jobs from the state governments. Shame the POD limit wasn't an extra six years back or so, as you might have went for a regional confederation of North, South, and West Carolina.

I might have to think about a 1776/1777 POD then, since that would make it easier, but I'm trying to fit it into the larger structure of a Fringe alternate universe timeline (which I'm hoping I'll be able to post on this site in the coming weeks). My understanding is that the two universes were the same up until at least 1783 since an artifact buried at this date is found in both realities. I know I'm getting off topic into ASB territory but that's why I'm trying to work with a post-1783 POD for now.

The problem is that, per the federal Constitution, a state's borders can only be changed with the consent of its legislature. And because of the Senate's construction, merger reduces the power of a state, so you're unlikely to find a state legislature that will voluntarily reduce its power on the nation stage by consolidating with another state.

Which is why, without a colonial boundary change, your best -- and probably only -- chance to redraw state borders is in the aftermath of the Civil War using Reconstruction as your pretext. That still requires the non-Lincolnian wing of the Republican Party to win the debate on the question of the status of the Southern states, but that's at least something you can finagle with the right PoD. Said debate being whether the Confederacy had in fact seceded: If it had, then the states had forfeited their rights under the Constitution and could be subjected to whatever terms Congress deemed appropriate for their readmission, as well as being subject to border reconfiguration as if they were any other Territory. (Thaddeus Stevens was probably the most vociferous advocate of that position.) Lincoln and his fellow-travelers were of the opinion that the Confederacy had not in fact seceded and, as such, were still to be afforded all of the rights and protections granted them by the Constitution, including the veto over the redrawing of their frontiers.

Interesting, this is the kind of scenario I've been trying to work in for months, honestly. I know the whole premise is kind of convoluted but I appreciate the ideas. Could this kind of transformation occur in a timeline where Andrew Johnson's impeachment leads to his removal from office and Benjamin Wade ascends to the Presidency? Or would it work better under Grant or someone else prior to the end of Reconstruction?
 
Last edited:
There was not much lost between the Carolinas. North Carolinians before the ACW thought South Carolinians crazy. E.g., after Lincoln's election (which most North Carolinians did not consider to be in itself sufficient cause for secession): "Are you *submissionists* to the dictation of South Carolina?... Are you to be called *cowards* because you do not follow the crazy lead of that crazy state?" https://books.google.com/books?id=_jSpJP7nBb0C&pg=PA25
 
There was not much lost between the Carolinas.

In fact, the reason the two colonies were split in the first place was because North Carolinians didn't care to be ruled from Charleston, and from a distant capital with disparate economic paradigms. The two regions grew apart very quickly.

Basically, the answer to your question would apply just as much to how to combine any two other contiguous states (say, North Carolina and Tennessee or South Carolina and Georgia). i mean, the only difference between the two scenarios is the name.

Although, in the aftermath of the war, I'm not sure why the North would even unite the two after the war. NC was one of (if not the) most Unionist of the Southern states that seceded, along the lines of Tennessee, while SC was one the first one to leave the Union. By combining the two states, the North risks diminishing the influence of Unionist elements while strengthening the more coastal, pro-slavery forces in the East. Basically, it would be counterproductive to the purposes to simply merge the two. (that's not to mention what the Northern states would react to the sudden expansion of federal power).

The best direction to get Carolina as a single state might be to have the southern states not ratify the convention due to other differences (I've speculated that a Mecklenburg Declaration that proved to truly be one of independence might lead to two parallel wars being fought for independence) but even without it, say that NC and SC (and GA) are unsatisfied with the constitution at first. NC and SC confederate as a single state (though devolved) under the Old Articles or something similar. Fast forward a few decades, and with US growing dominant over their position, the combined Carolina union petitions for and joins the United States, becoming a bit of a different looking Virginia (a large, populous state with its own identity and with possessions on both sides of the Appalachians).

You have to have some time for a common Carolinian identity to redevelop, otherwise there might be a drive to resplit the state after admission.

Though, in the end, that Carolina would be NC + SC + TN + that strip that SC ceded to Georgia at the least.
 
Though, in the end, that Carolina would be NC + SC + TN + that strip that SC ceded to Georgia at the least.

I'm sure the Southwest Territory would still split from (N) Carolina and become Tennessee at some point, though, right? And that other strip always belonged to Georgia anyway.

If we're thinking about a combined State of Carolina from the start, how does that affect the Nullification Crisis and Civil War? Both of these are huge events, of course (the latter more so), and I'm afraid eliminating one or both of them from history would cause huge butterflies. I'm liking the theories though.
 
I'm sure the Southwest Territory would still split from (N) Carolina and become Tennessee at some point, though, right? And that other strip always belonged to Georgia anyway.

That's more if the Carolinas merge at the beginning to become a state. So, the entire territories of the two states would be combined into a single entity, with the borders of alt-Tennessee (West Carolina?) being formed into a third member of the Confederation at a later date. Or, well, North Carolina might just keep it, it could go either way.

And the land that South Carolina ceded to Georgia was its until 1787; it wasn't until later surveys after the fact that headwaters of the Savannah were located in Georgia. So Souther Carolina would still maintain it if the split is at the start. It wouldn't be the first time that inaccurate surveying would lead to odd boundaries.

And the nullification crisis may never occur. With North Carolina and Tennessee as part of the state, the entire culture of the state ends up being different. Tariffs might not be as important to the whole, as South Carolina would be the smallest of the three members (if i remember correctly)
 
I suppose it might help if I publish the full map this thread was inspired by:

USAlternateMap.jpg


I could spend all day asking questions about the other states featured here, but suffice it to say I think the differences in geography (especially in the East) probably result from much smaller deviations. The fact that Virginia, Louisiana, and Nevada seem to hold designations other than just being 'States' hints to me that we might be dealing with an alternate Reconstruction (and definitely an alternate Civil War ala Midland and two Texases), although that's nowhere near a definite.
 
I suppose it might help if I publish the full map this thread was inspired by:

View attachment 344282

I could spend all day asking questions about the other states featured here, but suffice it to say I think the differences in geography (especially in the East) probably result from much smaller deviations. The fact that Virginia, Louisiana, and Nevada seem to hold designations other than just being 'States' hints to me that we might be dealing with an alternate Reconstruction (and definitely an alternate Civil War ala Midland and two Texases), although that's nowhere near a definite.

Poor California.

Either way, I can't say anything about that. It looks like random shoving together of the various state boundaries, minus the Michigan Upper Peninsula and such, that's otherwise relatively arbitrary. And, well, it's a fairly common decision to shove the two Carolina's together without any sort of thought as to why they are separate in the first place.

I mean, Rhode Island is still a state on that map. Not sure what the splotches are supposed to mean, but likely spread of damage.
 
Poor California.

Either way, I can't say anything about that. It looks like random shoving together of the various state boundaries, minus the Michigan Upper Peninsula and such, that's otherwise relatively arbitrary. And, well, it's a fairly common decision to shove the two Carolina's together without any sort of thought as to why they are separate in the first place.

I mean, Rhode Island is still a state on that map. Not sure what the splotches are supposed to mean, but likely spread of damage.

I can't blame you. I agree there's no chance in hell the people who made this for the show put anywhere near as much thought into it as I am (or anyone else for that matter). I've been trying to make rhyme or reason of it for a long time and I feel like I'm getting closer.

If you think about it, some of it can be explained rather easily: Midland could result from there being a larger Kansas Territory (with a different name) in the absence of a Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson presidency, which is a major difference hinted at in the show. Nevada wasn't supposed to become a state as early as it did and didn't even gain a population over 60,000 until 1879. A singular Dakota and no West Virginia are not too difficult to imagine. Southern British Columbia could just be a convoluted carryover of the Washington Territory's original name, Columbia Territory. I think North and South Texas are the result of Sam Houston never immigrating to Mexico due to alternate Tennessee political history without a President Jackson (after all, they have alt-NASA Command & Control still being in Florida). I have a whole thread about Michigan's UP. California's lost coast is probably supposed to be a result of "The Big One," and the splotches are "fringe events," although this not being the ASB forum I hesitate to go into detail about those.

The difficulty, of course, is in figuring out what's the deal with VA, LA, and Carolina. Removing statehood for any of these too early on would throw off the balancing math for the slave state / free state admission and I hate to think what that would lead to (although it's my understanding that Illinois didn't achieve a population of 60,000 until the early to mid-1820s, years after its admission). This is why I think there must have been a lot of changes in a more radical Reconstruction. This is a TV show we're talking about after all, but like I said I hesitate to rely too much on that logic since we're already in the more serious Alternate History Discussion forum.
 
Midland could result from there being a larger Kansas Territory (with a different name) in the absence of a Trail of Tears and Andrew Jackson presidency, which is a major difference hinted at in the show.

Which easily would butterfly the rest of the Midwest, as there is no way the same borders would be chosen (at least, the neutral strip wouldn't be attached the same). The rest of the midwest had their borders determined afterwards. Plus, the only states that this is similar in size to, Montana/Dakota, have much less usable land than this Midland state. Part of the reason Dakota was made a state, as large as it was, is because a large portion of the southern part of the state was locked up in the Dakota reservation which later was shrunk. (the split was brought about by political reasons, though. easy enough to ignore).

Southern British Columbia makes no sense at all... It might be "American" Columbia, as in the alternate state name thread, it was laid out that it was the actual name desired by the residents. (If it was a conquered portion of British Columbia that became the state, the border would be on the Columbia river in all regards.

This is a TV show we're talking about after all

Ah, didn't know that. I was starting to wonder where this map is from. There are quite a few butterflies murdered in the creation of this.

As for the Louisiana territory, only reason i can think of is that the state has become so depopulated or overrun that it had to revert to territorial status and couldn't continue standard operations. But those kind of casualties would be in excess of 99% of the population.

As for Virginia... District implies that it is direct federal territory, which has all sorts of unfortunate implications that I'm not sure the creators foresaw when they made the map.

As for Carolina, well, I can't really think of a good answer in the scenario you're proscribing other than "someone got tired of seeing North and South Carolina but not North and South Texas." I mean, I guess the other answer is that it's been depopulated akin to Louisiana and they were combined to still retain statehood...? I'm honestly unsure.
 
Which easily would butterfly the rest of the Midwest, as there is no way the same borders would be chosen (at least, the neutral strip wouldn't be attached the same). The rest of the midwest had their borders determined afterwards. Plus, the only states that this is similar in size to, Montana/Dakota, have much less usable land than this Midland state. Part of the reason Dakota was made a state, as large as it was, is because a large portion of the southern part of the state was locked up in the Dakota reservation which later was shrunk. (the split was brought about by political reasons, though. easy enough to ignore).

Looking through the territorial evolution of the United States, I think that it's not too unbelievable that we could end up with a similar border layout as OTL, although I grant that it's realistically more of a stretch. However, Texas's northern border was already defined, and the other northernmost territories didn't touch what is now Oklahoma, being as that central region was only more clearly defined in 1854.

Southern British Columbia makes no sense at all... It might be "American" Columbia, as in the alternate state name thread, it was laid out that it was the actual name desired by the residents. (If it was a conquered portion of British Columbia that became the state, the border would be on the Columbia river in all regards.

It was an idea, I guess. But regardless of the name, clearly the state's borders are still the same.

As for the Louisiana territory, only reason i can think of is that the state has become so depopulated or overrun that it had to revert to territorial status and couldn't continue standard operations. But those kind of casualties would be in excess of 99% of the population.

As for Virginia... District implies that it is direct federal territory, which has all sorts of unfortunate implications that I'm not sure the creators foresaw when they made the map.

As for Carolina, well, I can't really think of a good answer in the scenario you're proscribing other than "someone got tired of seeing North and South Carolina but not North and South Texas." I mean, I guess the other answer is that it's been depopulated akin to Louisiana and they were combined to still retain statehood...? I'm honestly unsure.

The depopulation theory is one I haven't considered, and I suppose it's as plausible as anything else, but I don't know if I can buy into it since I can't see why it would only affect those particular states and not others (especially since New Orleans is referenced in the show as a thriving city, meaning no Katrina). I think a more rational explanation is that they already held that designation for a longer time (say, since the 1870s or even the country's inception, as we've discussed previously). The Virginia thing is honestly baffling to me, too, and besides a radical reconfiguration of the state's government I'm definitely not willing to give it up seeing as many of our early Presidents hailed from there. (Unless...they didn't ratify the Constitution, as you suggested for the Carolinas in your earlier post...)

I guess the moral of the story is that this forum might not be the best one to discuss these particular changes, but I think that it's interesting to think about how they might have come about in a serious ATL (since an 18th century POD does give us quite a lot of history to work with). I appreciate your patience; I'm just trying to narrow down the possibilities before I go full in on posting my full-fledged timeline in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Looking through the territorial evolution of the United States, I think that it's not too unbelievable that we could end up with a similar border layout as OTL, although I grant that it's realistically more of a stretch. However, Texas's northern border was already defined, and the other northernmost territories didn't touch what is now Oklahoma, being as that central region was only more clearly defined in 1854.

It's more Kansas being attached to Oklahoma that should drive some butterflies. After all, if Oklakansas exists as a territory, why would the neutral strip be appended to it (rather than it being added to a western state or just divided in two). It also makes self-government difficult, as the outer fringes of the territory would be governed from Kansas City, and later Topeka. That's one of the main reasons for the later divisions of states: without adequate means of communication with the capital, the citizens of the territories would start demanding their own representation.

And, in the end, while similar would make sense, they are otherwise identical. A combined state of that size would imply that the US would consider making western states even larger in general. And while sometimes a butterfly net is useful, these choices, overall, seem relatively random.

It was an idea, I guess. But regardless of the name, clearly the state's borders are still the same.

I don't mean to be rude. it just honestly doesn't make sense to me. My honest first reaction when I saw it was that it was actually part of Canada, and that the map just represented the area of an OTL US. That would make the most sense.

The depopulation theory is one I haven't considered, and I suppose it's as plausible as anything else, but I don't know if I can buy into it since I can't see why it would only affect those particular states and not others (especially since New Orleans is referenced in the show as a thriving city, meaning no Katrina). I think a more rational explanation is that they already held that designation for a longer time (say, since the 1870s or even the country's inception, as we've discussed previously).

I really just don't see why Louisiana, of all places, would retain territorial status. It mean one of the most important Southern states in the 19th century would not receive the full benefits and representation of statehood (also odd that every other bit of the Louisiana territory got statehood except Louisiana). I mean, I guess it could be some majority African-American territory as well (though, that begs the question of what of Mississippi, of which it and SC were far better choices), but they'd still desire representation.

And that bit about New Orleans is telling, as that means it wouldn't have lost its status for that reason. It just doesn't make sense from real-world terms.

The Virginia thing is honestly baffling to me, too, and besides a radical reconfiguration of the state's government I'm definitely not willing to give it up seeing as many of our early Presidents hailed from there. (Unless...they didn't ratify the Constitution, as you suggested for the Carolinas in your earlier post...)

Which means that it would be even less likely if they didn't ratify the constitution. Greater Virginia, as it were, would have even more of a state identity (a la Texas) which would give it a bit more of an independent streak than OTL. Even if it was conquered, it should eventually gain statehood status. The precedent of the federal government establishing a district of which it claims sole authority of, in that scenario, foreign citizens, just sounds a little off-target.

I guess the moral of the story is that this forum might not be the best one to discuss these particular changes, but I think that it's interesting to think about how they might have come about in a serious ATL (since an 18th century POD does give us quite a lot of history to work with). I appreciate your patience; I'm just trying to narrow down the possibilities before I go full in on posting my full-fledged timeline in the near future.

Well, it's not so much the forum, but it's an issue with many mass-media ATL. There seems to be too much invested in convenience and rule of cool, so butterflies tend to be ignored. Not that we can't have good divergences but, with the exception of Texas, everything seems a bit too deterministic.
 
Well, it's not so much the forum, but it's an issue with many mass-media ATL. There seems to be too much invested in convenience and rule of cool, so butterflies tend to be ignored. Not that we can't have good divergences but, with the exception of Texas, everything seems a bit too deterministic.

Fair enough. Regardless I'll still be posting the full timeline in the ASB forum (which I was going to do all along), but I definitely appreciate the ideas. I'll probably do some thinking about Midland and such.

With that out of the way maybe I can start posting other threads unrelated to this forsaken Fringe TL (thank goodness!) It's been fun having this discussion.
 
Fair enough. Regardless I'll still be posting the full timeline in the ASB forum (which I was going to do all along), but I definitely appreciate the ideas. I'll probably do some thinking about Midland and such.

With that out of the way maybe I can start posting other threads unrelated to this forsaken Fringe TL (thank goodness!) It's been fun having this discussion.

Sometimes, it's just best to insist that things are the way they are via author fiat. It's incredibly unlikely that they make the same choices, but eventually one just needs to put down their foot and say they are the way they are because it is this way. It may not be incredibly likely or possible, but it helps to keep the discussion moving along in the right direction rather being tied down in the nitty gritty.

Either way, same to you. If you want to continue the discussion about a united Carolina, potentially, that'd be fine. I'm just not sure how much help I could be with the scenario you've presented. (and the reasons they may have occurred would be due to ASB at some point, so this isn't the proper place to discuss it if that's the determination.)
 
Sometimes, it's just best to insist that things are the way they are via author fiat. It's incredibly unlikely that they make the same choices, but eventually one just needs to put down their foot and say they are the way they are because it is this way. It may not be incredibly likely or possible, but it helps to keep the discussion moving along in the right direction rather being tied down in the nitty gritty.

Either way, same to you. If you want to continue the discussion about a united Carolina, potentially, that'd be fine. I'm just not sure how much help I could be with the scenario you've presented. (and the reasons they may have occurred would be due to ASB at some point, so this isn't the proper place to discuss it if that's the determination.)

Sounds good. I might take you up on that Carolina offer, be it in this thread or another.

Just one more thing...there's not a chance that "District of Virginia" and "Louisiana Territory" could be the names of actual states, right? I mean, stranger things have happened.
 
Just one more thing...there's not a chance that "District of Virginia" and "Louisiana Territory" could be the names of actual states, right? I mean, stranger things have happened.

Seems odd that only those would be specified, then, and there are several Commonwealths which aren't listed. I could see District if we were specifying all of the various unique governments, but to put it out there by itself implies it has a different status. Though, district does tend to have the meaning of a subdivision of a greater whole, rather than a sovereign territory.

And, in US parlance, territories are distinctly nonsovereign, so unless the meaning of the term has changed, I don't see it being the name of a sovereign region.
 
Top