areas on this map viable states

This is the North American portion of an Ameriwank map. The green is what this USA has in North America Basically I want to know which areas north of the OTL boundary would be viable for states and which would be stuck as permanent territories. Any comments about the new boundaries in OTL USA would be cool also. any comments about my map making skills are not cool.
 

Attachments

  • ameriwank map.png
    ameriwank map.png
    197.8 KB · Views: 253
The Idaho panhandle where Nevada is looks bizarre. Realistically most of Nevada would be part of Utah, with the southern part (basically Clark County/Vegas area) given to Arizona. The western part might go to the northern California state. Mexico looks weird too. Why'd Nuevo Leon eat most of the southwestern parts? Why'd Sonora lose the Gadsden purchase territories?

In Canada, the Maritimes are plausible (PEI might get a free pass to statehood due to being a separate colony, otherwise it gets merged with Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, both of which would be states), Southern Ontario, Newfoundland (with Labrador, although that might be a separate territory which will never get statehood), and the southern parts of the Prairies and BC. I doubt anything else would ever have the population, except maybe the state in northern Alberta which includes the Northwest Territories. I could see Alaska and Yukon being merged (no need for that weird division). Maybe even merge it with the northern BC territory (it would still only be the 2nd or 3rd largest administrative division in the world after the Sakha Republic and Western Australia). Greenland, the northern Manitoba/Nunavut territory, and everything around Alaska would never be a state (and I can't see Alaska being a state either here unless it merged with its neighbours and/or annexed the panhandle).
 
what in the world to do about Nevada was the most puzzling question. This actually looks less bizarre then earlier versions. Nuevo Leon is only merged with Tamaulipas, Coahulia is merged with southern Texas. It is hard to tell on the map but southern Alaska and Northern BC are merged. The Maritimes (also difficult to see the boundary between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was removed) are one. really did not think about not giving the Gadsden area to Arizona.
 
North Alaska would almost certainly be incorporated into South Alaska/Northern BC or that neighboring province to the east simply for administrative reasons. It will never be a state on it's own and administering it as a separate territory would be a logistical nightmare.

Greenland will remain a territory because of low population unless it's incorporated into the Maritimes.

The Dakotas seem unlikely to be divided that way. I think historically keeping it one territory is more plausible than an east/west split.

That southern panhandle on Idaho is the only thing that really strikes me as really weird looking. Why not divide that area between Utah and Northern California? The rest of the map seems mostly historically justifiable though. After all, most state borders are the result of political compromise rather than geographic boundaries.
 
what in the world to do about Nevada was the most puzzling question. This actually looks less bizarre then earlier versions. Nuevo Leon is only merged with Tamaulipas, Coahulia is merged with southern Texas. It is hard to tell on the map but southern Alaska and Northern BC are merged. The Maritimes (also difficult to see the boundary between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was removed) are one. really did not think about not giving the Gadsden area to Arizona.

But why make those border changes in Mexico? Texas isn't going to give up their claims that easily.

I could see New Brunswick and Nova Scotia being partitioned to make up for all the Mexican states. PEI was its own colony during the American Revolution so would logically be admitted as a state too regardless of population (it would be more populous than a few western states in the late 19th century).

The Dakotas seem unlikely to be divided that way. I think historically keeping it one territory is more plausible than an east/west split.

While I agree, I do like the idea of "East/West Dakota", with the border being the Missouri River. Although that seems pretty difficult, given most of West Dakota had only recently been conquered from the Sioux at OTL Dakota statehood and was pretty empty of white people compared to East Dakota. It would be an interesting division in the modern age, given that by current population West Dakota would have the second highest percentage of Native Americans (possibly the highest percentage) and West Dakota also has the Bakken Formation oil.
 
Top