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.