BINGO, Especially if Connecticut Seeks to Enforce their Claim to OTL Northern Pennsylvania ...If the aim is to cut off New York City from upstate, an alliance with Connecticut would be helpful.
By The Time we get to This Stage of The Game, OTL's American North-Eastern States, Have Likely Settled out All of their Differences and have Gone on to Sign Several Treaties in Regards to Most of The Disputed Borders ...If you look at it this way it makes much more sense, Texas and California can be Austria and Hungry respectively. Because they are both ruled by an American but most of their population is actually Latin American. And then we can have something like Gran Columbia be like Russia, of course there is the problem that the real Russia would still be a major factor. I'll work on a map that has the whole world. Along with a more precise America map. And the Illinois territory should be part of Pennsylvania until 1820 or so then they become independent because they need to keep up with Virginia's military. Pennsylvania could be like France.
Here is what I think the alliances should be in the early 1900s
Triple Alliance: Germany, England and Russia
vs.
Socialist Union: France, Italy, Gran Columbia and Mexico
vs.
American Triple: Virginia(American Federation) Texo-California and Illinois
Why would Northern New England support New York? That seems very unlikely, considering that New Hampshire and Massachusetts have settled their common borders long ago and have no disputes anymore, while there's a very large and very active border dispute between New Hampshire and New York known as "Vermont".BINGO, Especially if Connecticut Seeks to Enforce their Claim to OTL Northern Pennsylvania ...
My Suspicion, Is The Alliances would Originally Shake Out as Northern New England Supporting New York and Pennsylvania Against Southern New England, Culminating in New York Relinquishing Montpelier in Exchange for The Liberation of Maine from Massachusetts ...
Well, That's The Irony ...Why would Northern New England support New York? That seems very unlikely, considering that New Hampshire and Massachusetts have settled their common borders long ago and have no disputes anymore, while there's a very large and very active border dispute between New Hampshire and New York known as "Vermont".
I see MA, NH, CT vs. NY and PA being the most likely sides in this conflict. Unfortunately I'd likely bet on New England losing, unless perhaps they can get Virginia involved in exchange for settling their western land claims in the Ohio Valley in VA's favor?
North-western border? Wouldn't that be Vermont?Well, That's The Irony ...
New Hampshire's North-Western Border was ONLY Settled in 1741 and Some People in Massachusetts can Still be Pretty Touchy about it Even Today; I See it Originally Developing as a Three-Way War with The Area around Modern-Day Montpelier being The Principle Northern-Battle-Ground ...
After New York Winds up being Split in Half However, They Make a Deal with The Devil in Order to Return The Favour with The Liberation of Maine!
Not Exactly, Behold Massachusetts' Original Claim ...North-western border? Wouldn't that be Vermont?
If you mean the southern border, I don't see any evidence about that dispute really surviving to this period, let alone the present day... And Massachusetts would easily overwhelm New Hampshire in any conflict anyway.![]()
Being a Chicagoan I would hate to see the dreaded Texan horse barbarians take over the country. I think I'm going to cry just at the thought of it.
I know that Massachusetts had a claim, but it was gone by this time period... I think it's much more likely that MA and NH would ally against their common enemy in New York.Not Exactly, Behold Massachusetts' Original Claim ...
As can be Plainly Seen, Originally New Hampshire was a Thumb-Sized Tract of Territory, In-Land from The Coast Along The Piscataqua and Three Miles North of The Merrimack Rivers ...
The REAL Irony is Ye' Olde Bordere is Very Similar to The Current Boundary Line, Between New Hampshire's Two Modern Congressional Districts!