Alternate US state shapes?

Reflection

What are alternate shapes for US states as we know them, and what could've caused it? As you may know, the state lines weren't decided upon by gentlemen who were all on the same page, but were forged through decades of history through tension, uncertainty and violence. Thus, things could've easily gone the other way.

One that comes to mind is that Virginia could've been bigger, because originally it was. The state used to include all the land of West Virginia, and looked like this:
1845tanner2-017__02102.1485637959.1280.1280.jpg

Yeah, it was quite a monstrosity looking at it now, but that's what it was then. The reason West Virginia exists is due to the Civil War, where pro-Unionists formed a de facto government in the area that is now West Virginia, and ceded from the original. And they weren't about to rejoin post-War, because they had opposing views and weren't about to give the disgruntled South more power.

So in an alternate timeline, either with no Civil War, or with different circumstances we can't quite foresee, perhaps Virginia is still the massive state it once was?

Anyways, what other examples come to mind?
 

Elfwine

You could have a different (or not have one at all) divsion of the Utah territory into Utah and Nevada, for the first one to mind after Virginia. Probably divide the Old Northwest differently too.

That might just be just drawing the exact borders differently, as far as them being (from the perspective of alternate history) not on all that inevitable lines - different leaders, or different settlements, might be enough if you go back far enough. Michigan's borders with Ohio and Wisconsin specifically seem like they could go differently if different decisions were made, for something more specific in there - https://www.britannica.com/place/Michigan/Statehood-and-growth#ref614158 Michigan with the Toledo strip but not the western Upper Peninsula (and/or if you go back further, not having the Upper Peninsula be part of what's counted as "Michigan Territory" in the first place could have happened.
 
Last edited:

Titanium49

We're not only talking about where the US drew the borders between the states and territories, but where the US & UK drew the borders between Canada and the US, and where borders were drawn after the Mexican-American war. Suppose, for example, the MAW broke out earlier and the US conceded more territory, presumably the Columbia River border in Oregon. Suppose the US did take Baja California after the MAW. The California which joined the union in 1850 would have had to draw a border within California. I think they would have taken the top 1/3, and we would have ended up with Upper or North, Middle or Central, and Lower or South California.
 

Reflection

How realistic would it be for a timeline where there is no Idaho Panhandle, and instead it's just an extension of Eastern Washington? Mainly because in OTL, it basically is in terms of culture and commerce with that area largely serving Spokane, even if it's not part of Washington officially speaking. The Panhandle also looks a bit odd when you think about it.
 

MiniaAr

Florida Panhandle included in Alabama and Michigan panhandle included in Wisconsin would have changed a couple of US presidential elections right?
 

Arkenfolm

After the Louisiana Territory was split up, a lot of the territories created from it used the Continental Divide as a border. I think it's plenty plausible that the states stay that way.
Reflection said:
How realistic would it be for a timeline where there is no Idaho Panhandle, and instead it's just an extension of Eastern Washington? Mainly because in OTL, it basically is in terms of culture and commerce with that area largely serving Spokane, even if it's not part of Washington officially speaking. The Panhandle also looks a bit odd when you think about it.
Click to expand...
Very likely. IIRC even into the early 20th century there were still movements calling for splitting Idaho and joining the Panhandle to Montana or Washington because it was a pain in the ass to get from the Panhandle to Boise thanks to the only trails having to cross very steep mountains. If Idaho has to include the Panhandle, geographically it makes more sense to make the Panhandle not a panhandle anymore and give Idaho the northeastern quarter of Oregon and the eastern third of Washington, maybe making the border the Columbia River. This would give Idaho the entire Snake River basin (if the easternmost corner of Oregon was also attached).
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

I've read that in the early1800s, there was a proposal to split Maryland at the Susquehanna River, and merge the eastern segment with Delaware. Allegedly, it failed by one vote in the Maryland state Senate
 

Jimbo808

The contiguous United States borders are very square, very straight lines.

I wonder if we could still get the same number of states but with octagon shaped borders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top