Status
Not open for further replies.
So what is the Liberal Party anyway?

Essentially a postbellum Not Democrats that came out of a split in the Republicans after slavery ended and the hilariously corrupt Chase admin caused the Great Depression. Mix of conservative/moderate Republicans and reform-minded soft Democrats skeptical of both urban machine politics, reactionary Jacksonianism and Western silverites.

Democrats changing their party composition after losing the South and the Republicans collapsing basically drives a realignment and creates space for European style liberal and working class parties (Labor, Anti-Monopoly, what’s left of the Republicans, etc)
 

Ficboy

Banned
Essentially a postbellum Not Democrats that came out of a split in the Republicans after slavery ended and the hilariously corrupt Chase admin caused the Great Depression. Mix of conservative/moderate Republicans and reform-minded soft Democrats skeptical of both urban machine politics, reactionary Jacksonianism and Western silverites.

Democrats changing their party composition after losing the South and the Republicans collapsing basically drives a realignment and creates space for European style liberal and working class parties (Labor, Anti-Monopoly, what’s left of the Republicans, etc)
I've also seen some mentions of Black migration to the United States. Considering the lack of opportunities after slavery and competition in the job market from non-planter whites not to mention sharecropping not existing or at least not to the extent seen in OTL it will mean that million or so blacks will emigrate from the Confederate States in search of a better life and there is the instances of slaves escaping to the Underground Railroad and the massive immigration wave from Southern and Eastern Europe in the 1880s-1920s. Of course it will be different from the Great Migration as far how spread this alternate emigration and the status of blacks are concerned.
 
The Wolverine in the White House: The Presidency of George Armstrong Custer at 100
"...that the General's name had been placed in nomination at the Democratic convention both for President and Vice President - and received only a smattering of votes in the former ballot and none in the latter - served as a signal that the time to pursue the long-mulled political ambitions had come. Nationally, in a world where Democrats saw themselves as ascendant coming out of the Great Depression and had the titanic figure of Sunset Cox [1] available to be their consensus candidate, it made no sense for a famously erratic Indian fighter to vault to the top of the political world. In Michigan, however, where the state legislature was closely split (practically tied!) between Democrat and Liberal with a small caucus of independents who could swing elections and the Governor elected two years earlier was of the insurgent party, and the pending retirement of Isaac Christiancy due to poor health opened the door to a new Democratic seat, Custer was in demand. Having previously considered running for Congress or Governor, Custer was persuaded to focus his attention on the state of the legislature by local leaders and promised the soon-to-be open Senate seat in the event of a win. Custer's furious barnstorming across Michigan, where he rode into towns and gave speeches from his horseback and detailed his exploits on the Plains Wars, drew him comparisons to a young, Northern Andrew Jackson - and, in some Liberal newspapers, including the prominent New-York Tribune of Whitelaw Reid [2], to the infamous Nathan Forrest of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, even as a tide of Liberal legislatures were elected across the Midwest that year on platforms of public (read: non-parochial and particularly non-Catholic) education and breaking the "scourge of patronage machines," Michigan held out, a rare state where Democrats boosted their numbers modestly in both houses of the legislature. As the Michigan Assembly gathered in Lansing that January to elect a new Senator, it was a fait accompli who would be appointed - on a party-line vote, George Armstrong Custer was elected as Michigan's next Senator, with he and Libbie [3] watching beaming from the gallery.

"Back your bags, my dear, we're going back to Washington!" he declared as they left Lansing that day. For the man run out of the capital more than once by his enemies in the stratified Army command as well as what he considered the hopelessly corrupt Indian Office, his comeback was nigh, and the Jacksonian wing of the Democratic Party would have new life breathed into it..."

- The Wolverine in the White House: The Presidency of George Armstrong Custer at 100 [4]


[1] This was in fact Sam Cox's nickname
[2] Reid will be an important figure moving forward here, and newspaper coverage of 1880 will come next (building up to the 1890s newspaper wars between Reid, Pulitzer and a one Theodore Roosevelt!)
[3] Custer's wife, Elizabeth
[4] My original plans for Custer were changed a bit, in terms of his party affiliation and when he achieves the White House (and the trajectory of his Presidency, and thus who some of the other late 19th/early 20th century Presidents will be). He was originally going to be a Liberal, hence the previous textbook entry on him that features Joseph Pulitzer, who ITTL keeps his Liberal affiliation long term. No retcon necessary, thankfully, it's just some things potentially seeded there won't come to pass. Turns out Custer was a Jacksonian's Jacksonian as a kid, so him becoming a "we're all basically ex-Republicans, except for a few of us" Liberal makes zero sense.
 
The Swords Draws Ink: Circulation Wars, Newsman Rivalries and the Rise of the Modern Media in the 19th Century
"...the metonymic adage from which this book draws it's name, in full "where once gentlemen's swords drew blood, in the modern age the sword draws ink!" is oft-attributed to New York Journal owner and editor-in-chief Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt [1], and indeed in the late 1800s that adage began to bear true in the United States. One of the major turning points for the rise of a partisan and influential press was the election of 1880. Narrowly decided in both popular vote and electoral vote - and the first election to provide a split result, with Samuel Cox taking 0.4% more of the popular vote than James Blaine despite losing the electoral college thanks to painfully small losses in New York and Pennsylvania - it was also one in which some results may have been swung by newspaper coverage. Whitelaw Reid's [2] New York Tribune was a fervently Liberal paper unlike other New York papers like the staid Times, or the infamously Democratic Herald and its aggressive politicking against Cox may have had as much to do with the Secretary of State's narrow loss as did third-party candidates popular with the working class. In Missouri, the other major Liberal newspaperman - Joseph Pulitzer [3] - may have nearly tipped the state to Blaine with his St Louis Post-Dispatch. As the need for circulation among smaller publications increased along with an electorate increasingly literate and interested in both hard news and salacious gossip, two things which politics provide in plenty, the age of the great newspaper wars was at hand..."

- The Swords Draws Ink: Circulation Wars, Newsman Rivalries and the Rise of the Modern Media in the 19th Century


[1] TR is basically being swapped out for William Randolph Hearst
[2] Reid was one of the founders of the OTL Liberal Republicans along with Horace Greeley, his boss at the Tribune. ITTL, since the split is permanent, he stays an ardent and influential Libearl
[3] Pulitzer was also a Liberal IOTL in 1872 but drifted back to the Democrats. Here, he stays.
 
1880 United States Census Results
1880 United States Census

(Figures shown: Pop. 1880, Change Raw and Percentage from 1870)

New York - 5,399,106 (+927,287) +18.5%
Pennsylvania - 4,493,462 (+804,560) +21.8%
Illinois - 3,235,321 (+633,904) +24.3%
Ohio - 3,171,959 (+456,241) +16.8%
Missouri - 2,193,204 (+421,909) +23.8%
Indiana - 2,076,903 (+345,922) +19.9%
Massachusetts - 1,762,718 (+255,687) +19.6%
Michigan - 1,737,977 (+503,918) +40.8% (passed Iowa)
Iowa - 1,696,361 (+452,341) +36.3%
Wisconsin - 1,495,673 (+391,003) +35.3%
New Jersey - 1,410,209 (+404,113) +40.2%
Kansas - 1,047,376 (+652,977) +165.5% (passed Maryland, California, Maine, Connecticut, Minnesota, and West Virginia!!!)
Maryland - 1,008,389 (+217,495) +27.5%
California - 953,239 (+342,992) +56.2% (passed Maine)
Maine - 775,431 (+138,516) +37.5%
Connecticut - 719,295 (+161,841) +29.0%
Minnesota - 679,121 (+229,415) + 51.0%
West Virginia - 622,561 (+180,230) +40.7%
Nebraska - 497,812 (+374,819) +304.7% (passed Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island)
New Hampshire - 377,019 (+48,719) +14.8% (passed Vermont)
Vermont - 362,718 (+32,167) +9.7%
Rhode Island - 306,869 (+79,516) +34.9%
Oregon - 209,597 (+104,667) +99.7% (passed Delaware and DC)
Colorado - 204,517 (+155,383) +316.4% (passed DC, Delaware, New Mexico)
District of Columbia* - 196,219 (+44,519) +29.3%
Delaware - 166,559 (+31,544) +23.3%
Utah Territory* - 153,471 (+57,135) +59.3%
Dakota Territory* - 145,177 (+126,996) +698.5%
New Mexico - 132,781 (+31,249) +30.8%
Washington Territory* - 85,617 (+52,202) +156.2%
Nevada - 67,871 (+25,355) +59.6%
Montana Territory* - 49,516 (+23,899) +93.3%
Idaho Territory* - 43,247 (+21,731) +101.0%
Wyoming Territory* - 23,421 (+12,006) +105.2%

TOTAL US (including territories) - 37,500,716 (+8,742,258) +30.4%

The 1880 Census found massive growth across the United States but particularly in the Midwest, which outpaced "older" northeastern states (New Jersey and Ohio being exceptions in both directions). In particular, a flood of homesteaders made states like Kansas and Nebraska boom even despite the rough agricultural economy during the Great Depression. Cities continued to grow, though they were still only on the cusp of their true urban boom that would come in the coming five decades. New York would clear 1 million inhabitants (at the time only Manhattan!), the first American city to do so.

Top 10 Cities 1880

New York - 1,350,178
Philadelphia - 967,141
Brooklyn - 606,341
Chicago - 538,192
Boston - 382,341
St. Louis - 355,617
Baltimore - 352,415
Cincinnati - 260,178
San Francisco - 257,011
Cleveland - 170,156

(Washington DC comes in at #11 at 167k or so, 30k less than DC as a whole)
 
Last edited:

Ficboy

Banned
1880 United States Census

(Figures shown: Pop. 1880, Change Raw and Percentage from 1870)

New York - 5,299,106 (+827,287) +18.5%
Pennsylvania - 4,493,462 (+804,560) +21.8%
Illinois - 3,235,321 (+633,904) +24.3%
Ohio - 3,171,959 (+456,241) +16.8%
Missouri - 2,193,204 (+421,909) +23.8%
Indiana - 2,076,903 (+345,922) +19.9%
Massachusetts - 1,762,718 (+255,687) +19.6%
Michigan - 1,737,977 (+503,918) +40.8% (passed Iowa)
Iowa - 1,696,361 (+452,341) +36.3%
Wisconsin - 1,495,673 (+391,003) +35.3%
New Jersey - 1,410,209 (+404,113) +40.2%
Kansas - 1,047,376 (+652,977) +165.5% (passed Maryland, California, Maine, Connecticut, Minnesota, and West Virginia!!!)
Maryland - 1,008,389 (+217,495) +27.5%
California - 953,239 (+342,992) +56.2% (passed Maine)
Maine - 875,431 (+238,516) +37.5%
Connecticut - 719,295 (+161,841) +29.0%
Minnesota - 679,121 (+229,415) + 51.0%
West Virginia - 622,561 (+180,230) +40.7%
Nebraska - 497,812 (+374,819) +304.7% (passed Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island)
New Hampshire - 377,019 (+48,719) +14.8% (passed Vermont)
Vermont - 362,718 (+32,167) +9.7%
Rhode Island - 306,869 (+79,516) +34.9%
Oregon - 209,597 (+104,667) +99.7% (passed Delaware and DC)
Colorado - 204,517 (+155,383) +316.4% (passed DC, Delaware, New Mexico)
District of Columbia* - 196,219 (+44,519) +29.3%
Delaware - 166,559 (+31,544) +23.3%
Utah Territory* - 153,471 (+57,135) +59.3%
Dakota Territory* - 145,177 (+126,996) +698.5%
New Mexico - 132,781 (+31,249) +30.8%
Washington Territory* - 85,617 (+52,202) +156.2%
Nevada - 67,871 (+25,355) +59.6%
Montana Territory* - 49,516 (+23,899) +93.3%
Idaho Territory* - 43,247 (+21,731) +101.0%
Wyoming Territory* - 23,421 (+12,006) +105.2%

TOTAL US (including territories) - 37,500,716 (+8,742,258) +30.4%

The 1880 Census found massive growth across the United States but particularly in the Midwest, which outpaced "older" northeastern states (New Jersey and Ohio being exceptions in both directions). In particular, a flood of homesteaders made states like Kansas and Nebraska boom even despite the rough agricultural economy during the Great Depression. Cities continued to grow, though they were still only on the cusp of their true urban boom that would come in the coming five decades. New York would clear 1 million inhabitants (at the time only Manhattan!), the first American city to do so.

Top 10 Cities 1880

New York - 1,350,178
Philadelphia - 967,141
Brooklyn - 606,341
Chicago - 538,192
Boston - 382,341
St. Louis - 355,617
Baltimore - 352,415
Cincinnati - 260,178
San Francisco - 257,011
Cleveland - 170,156

(Washington DC comes in at #11 at 167k or so, 30k less than DC as a whole)
So what are the largest cities in the Confederate States. My guess is New Orleans, Louisville, Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Atlanta, Charleston, Norfolk and Augusta.
 
So what are the largest cities in the Confederate States. My guess is New Orleans, Louisville, Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Atlanta, Charleston, Norfolk and Augusta.

I’m still trying to work out the Confederare census (if I even wind up doing it) but yeah that sounds about right. IOTL Tennessee and Kentucky were the biggest states in the South pop wise and they’re the center of TTL CSA industry, minimal as it may be
 

Ficboy

Banned
I’m still trying to work out the Confederare census (if I even wind up doing it) but yeah that sounds about right. IOTL Tennessee and Kentucky were the biggest states in the South pop wise and they’re the center of TTL CSA industry, minimal as it may be
As far as European immigration to the CSA is concerned it will happen but at a lower rate than the USA given the size and competition from blacks. For any immigration it would likely occur in New Orleans (which had a substantial immigrant population in OTL), Charleston (had historic, long lasting communities of Irish and Germans), Richmond (the national capital), Louisville (already had a substantial immigrant population), Atlanta (booming industry and railroads), Savannah (historial community of Irish), Memphis (again had substantial communities of Irish and German immigrants), Birmingham (a thriving city built with steel) and small towns and cities in Texas (which already had European immigration because of cheap unsettled land). Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee and Kentucky would have the largest European immigrant populations in the Confederacy for obvious reasons. Had Missouri or at least half of the state joined the Confederacy it would add an extra bit of industry.
 
[2] Reid will be an important figure moving forward here, and newspaper coverage of 1880 will come next (building up to the 1890s newspaper wars between Reid, Pulitzer and a one Theodore Roosevelt!)

[4] My original plans for Custer were changed a bit, in terms of his party affiliation and when he achieves the White House (and the trajectory of his Presidency, and thus who some of the other late 19th/early 20th century Presidents will be). He was originally going to be a Liberal, hence the previous textbook entry on him that features Joseph Pulitzer, who ITTL keeps his Liberal affiliation long term. No retcon necessary, thankfully, it's just some things potentially seeded there won't come to pass. Turns out Custer was a Jacksonian's Jacksonian as a kid, so him becoming a "we're all basically ex-Republicans, except for a few of us" Liberal makes zero sense.

I am looking forward to Roosevelt smashing the shit out of Reid.

On the OTL:
Although its not too OOC for Custer to change his political affiliation as he grew older, but yeah, Custer was one of McClellans chosen men in the Civil War, but the fact he kept his command was a testament to how reliable he was as a soldier under orders. And a Democrat in a Republican Crusade/Administration is a bad thing otherwise. Just look at Hancock.

At the same time its amazing that Sheridan was able to stave off Grant and Sherman the way he did when it came to Custer. Hence why he was "exiled" to Montana.
 
alternatehistory.en
"...I don't think Cox winning 1880 has as big of an effect as you'd think. The parties were sorting out the post-secession realities and almost twenty years after the fact had sort of begun to find their thrusts they would follow. What made things tough for Cox was that the Democrats had governed for two terms during a Depression largely thanks to splits in the opposition rather than their own merits - I think Hoffman probably wins 1872 even against a united Republican (or Liberal, as it would become) party, but it's probably narrower in the EV. Hendricks in '76 is harder to call... the economy had improved by then (indeed the depression officially ended in 1877 according to most historians) but he was very much a creature of the War Generation, so to speak, and so was Cox (he was the Speaker of the House during the Treaty of Havana negotiations, for god's sake!). So yes, you had a number of factors working against Cox-Randall. The economy was better but still mediocre, having stalled after improving through Hendricks' term. You had not one but two left wing spoiler parties with their own bases siphoning working class urban voters from the Hickories, most prominently legendary anti-Semite Ben Butler. And lastly, Cox was a victim of his own cachet. He was a titan of the Democratic Party, and had been for a long time - which meant, that much like Henry Clay was a generation earlier, he was a politician of the previous generation, not the next. In a country that had just grown by 30% in the last decade, and where the populace was starting to agitate more on policy rather than sectional alignments, and, quite frankly, in a universe where Democratic goals such as expanding the monetary supply had been met.

You can make a pretty easy butterfly though. So many tiny things could have changed a few thousand votes here or there, and you really only need one medium sized state - not even New York, which usually gets attention - to tip the EC to Cox. My preference would be the Anti-Monopolists and Labor Republicans running one ticket rather than separately. You probably have some voters gettable by Cox in such a case, and there you have it. The margin was that thin.

I've seen talk that Cox wins two terms like Blaine [1], and that's indeed quite possible. The economy improved dramatically in 1881-85. I think that Presidential "fatigue" is largely nonsense, and Cox likely declines to touch the 8:1 silver ratio, just as Blaine (surprisingly, considering his pro-gold standard stance!) declined. Where you probably see a big shift is foreign policy - Cox was the chief diplomat but he was not a believer in tariff reciprocity, so you don't see the focus on that, nor do we probably see the rise of multilateralism that came out of the Pan-American Conference spearheaded by Blaine. Cox was a talented technocrat probably born in the wrong century, honest and diligent; Blaine, for all his faults, was a visionary and a very transitional figure, leading the United States out of the grievances of the pre-and-postbellum eras and into its birth as an emerging power. Where Cox could really have made an impact was the Supreme Court - we're not getting the Edmunds Court with him, to say the least - and possibly on integrating class agitators into the Democratic base earlier. The Greenbacks, Anti-Monopolists and their successors became a genuine problem for the Democrats in the 1880s. How he would have dealt with that would be a fascinating counterfactual - was he too much of the Midwestern conservative Jacksonian to see the opportunity? For all his many weaknesses, George Pendleton - dismissed in his time and ours as the arch-reactionary Doughface Copperhead to end all Doughface Copperheads - was pretty canny in how he tried to speak to the suffering poor, which was a big reason he was such a fan of soft money. Cox was never known as a rigid man, flexible enough to run a Democratic House caucus split amongst War and Peace Democrats and was able to serve dutifully enough under both Hoffman and Hendricks that he could appease every faction within the Democratic Party in '80... no easy task!

In short, I don't think the lamented "greatest President we never had" came and went in 1880. Cox was an experienced politician respected around DC. His Presidency would likely have ended less acrimoniously than Blaine's, but he would likely have faded from memory within a few generations. That he would have died so soon after his Presidency ended and there was no plain figure who would serve as a successor to his constituency (unlike Blaine, who cultivated a key corps of allies, or Lincoln, who's lengthy post-Presidency allowed him to rehabilitate his image) probably would add to his anonymity. What we missed out on was a relatively honest man who would probably have more or less continued the policies of Hoffman and Hendricks, for better or worse..."

- WI: Samuel Cox Wins in 1880 (althistory.en, September 4, 2020)


[1] Whoops spoilers!
 
I am looking forward to Roosevelt smashing the shit out of Reid.

On the OTL:
Although its not too OOC for Custer to change his political affiliation as he grew older, but yeah, Custer was one of McClellans chosen men in the Civil War, but the fact he kept his command was a testament to how reliable he was as a soldier under orders. And a Democrat in a Republican Crusade/Administration is a bad thing otherwise. Just look at Hancock.

At the same time its amazing that Sheridan was able to stave off Grant and Sherman the way he did when it came to Custer. Hence why he was "exiled" to Montana.
Hehe not a Whitelaw Reid fan, eh? ;)

The personal and professional rivalries of a lot of the big personalities from the Union Army in the postbellum era is pretty fascinating. Like you said, it is amazing Sheridan was able to cover for Custer like he did. Frankly, in the research on Custer I've done for this TL, how he kept his job with his critiques and exposes of trading post shenanigans is pretty remarkable.

I considered having Custer run for office even earlier, in the mid-1860s like he pondered IOTL, but as he has less notoriety from the Union war effort being unsuccessful I decided to scrap that.
 
- WI: Samuel Cox Wins in 1880 (althistory.en, September 4, 2020)

Seriously, its like a @David T post.

Hehe not a Whitelaw Reid fan, eh? ;)

Not sure which biography it was, but it was either the Robert Todd Lincoln one (Giant in the Shadows) or the Jon Hay one (All the Great Prizes). he man was notorious for twisting in knives. Both books are on my shelf but I would have to go back and find which one.

The personal and professional rivalries of a lot of the big personalities from the Union Army in the postbellum era is pretty fascinating. Like you said, it is amazing Sheridan was able to cover for Custer like he did. Frankly, in the research on Custer I've done for this TL, how he kept his job with his critiques and exposes of trading post shenanigans is pretty remarkable.

I considered having Custer run for office even earlier, in the mid-1860s like he pondered IOTL, but as he has less notoriety from the Union war effort being unsuccessful I decided to scrap that.

Custer could not run in the 1860s he would only be in his 20s. He would have to wait until 1876 at his earliest, and even though there has been many a thread about him running in 1876 on this forum - the ATL of him winning at Little Bighorn, he would still be controversial to the democrats.

Yeah, SHeridan was well aware how useful Custer was, but at the same time as much as Sheridan covered for him, he also managed to piss the General off. Grant and Sherman both ewanted him cashiered, but Sheridan compromised by sending him out to Montana.
 
Seriously, its like a @David T post.



Not sure which biography it was, but it was either the Robert Todd Lincoln one (Giant in the Shadows) or the Jon Hay one (All the Great Prizes). he man was notorious for twisting in knives. Both books are on my shelf but I would have to go back and find which one.



Custer could not run in the 1860s he would only be in his 20s. He would have to wait until 1876 at his earliest, and even though there has been many a thread about him running in 1876 on this forum - the ATL of him winning at Little Bighorn, he would still be controversial to the democrats.

Yeah, SHeridan was well aware how useful Custer was, but at the same time as much as Sheridan covered for him, he also managed to piss the General off. Grant and Sherman both ewanted him cashiered, but Sheridan compromised by sending him out to Montana.

Funny you mention that, I'd read a few @David T posts before writing that so I may in fact have been channeling his Gilded Age history knowledge. I'd be curious to get his critique of this alt-Union Gilded Age, in fact.

Funny you bring Robert Lincoln and John Hay up... they'll both have parts to play in the coming decades as a result of the Blaine administration. Stay tuned!

Custer would come in at 27 in 1866, just over the cusp to run for Congress (as he considered), but I agree that he would lack the type of career under his belt in this timeline and our own to mount a run until quite some time later.
 

Ficboy

Banned
Funny you mention that, I'd read a few @David T posts before writing that so I may in fact have been channeling his Gilded Age history knowledge. I'd be curious to get his critique of this alt-Union Gilded Age, in fact.

Funny you bring Robert Lincoln and John Hay up... they'll both have parts to play in the coming decades as a result of the Blaine administration. Stay tuned!

Custer would come in at 27 in 1866, just over the cusp to run for Congress (as he considered), but I agree that he would lack the type of career under his belt in this timeline and our own to mount a run until quite some time later.
I suggest publishing this as a book given the length and scale of it similar to Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War by @Red_Galiray.
 
1882-1892 Congressional/Electoral Vote Allocation for United States
Here we have the Congressional allocation for the United States, based off of 325 seats. This gives every seat roughly a 113,200 person population. Of course, every state gets 1 Congressional seat, so it is inexact. Nevada, for instance, gets a congressional seat and 2 Senate seats like everybody else despite a pop of 67,000.

New York - 48 (50)
Pennsylvania - 40 (42)
Illinois - 29 (31)
Ohio - 28 (30)
Missouri - 19 (21)
Indiana - 18 (20)
Massachusetts - 16 (17)
Michigan - 15 (17)
Iowa - 15 (17)
Wisconsin - 13 (15)
New Jersey - 12 (14)
Kansas - 9 (11)
Maryland - 9 (11)
California - 9 (11)
Maine - 7 (9)
Connecticut - 6 (8)
Minnesota - 6 (8)
West Virginia - 6 (8)
Nebraska - 4 (6)
New Hampshire - 3 (5)
Vermont - 3 (5)
Rhode Island - 3 (5)
Oregon - 2 (4)
Colorado - 2 (4)
Delaware - 1 (3)
New Mexico - 1 (3)
Nevada - 1 (3)
 
Last edited:

Ficboy

Banned
Here we have the Congressional allocation for the United States, based off of 325 seats. This gives every seat roughly a 113,200 person population. Of course, every state gets 1 Congressional seat, so it is inexact. Nevada, for instance, gets a congressional seat and 2 Senate seats like everybody else despite a pop of 67,000.

New York - 47 (49)
Pennsylvania - 40 (42)
Illinois - 29 (31)
Ohio - 28 (30)
Missouri - 19 (21)
Indiana - 18 (20)
Massachusetts - 16 (17)
Michigan - 15 (17)
Iowa - 15 (17)
Wisconsin - 13 (15)
New Jersey - 12 (14)
Kansas - 9 (11)
Maryland - 9 (11)
California - 9 (11)
Maine - 8 (10)
Connecticut - 6 (8)
Minnesota - 6 (8)
West Virginia - 6 (8)
Nebraska - 4 (6)
New Hampshire - 3 (5)
Vermont - 3 (5)
Rhode Island - 3 (5)
Oregon - 2 (4)
Colorado - 2 (4)
Delaware - 1 (3)
New Mexico - 1 (3)
Nevada - 1 (3)
I would like to see you do a Confederate version as well.
 
How are Mexico's demographics? The growth of Altiplano due to European immigration probably would change the population a little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top