No Alabama

NomadicSky

Banned
What if the Mississippi territory hadn't been split?

Georgia requested when they droped the claim to the area that became Mississippi and Alabama that only one state would be created out of the area that was the Georgia cession.

Only one state would have an effect on the balance of free and slave states.

And what might be the capital?
 

Skokie

Banned
Not very likely, since they tried to get each new state to be roughly the same size.

Slightly more plausible would be if they decided to split them horizontally. That would probably better reflect the cultural differences between the Appalachians and the Gulf Coast. Culture-wise, it would be like having an "East Louisiana" and a "South Tennessee."
 
The Gulf Coast is really gerrymandered away in our current system here in the United States: A bit of Florida, that's mixed up with the South Florida urban areas, snowbirds, and the inland southerners that dominate the larger parts of Mississippi and Alabama.

There's Louisiana, but that's of course distinctly different with the French legacy in New Orleans - cajun style.

So that leaves us without a Gulf Coast homeland - as would be created by the split of the territory North/South.
 
Well, The Upper Half of The Yazoo Lands could be Jefferson, the Lower Half be named Adams, and The Gulf Coast of the Yazoolands go either to Louisiana, Florida, or be split by both.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
Not very likely, since they tried to get each new state to be roughly the same size.

Slightly more plausible would be if they decided to split them horizontally. That would probably better reflect the cultural differences between the Appalachians and the Gulf Coast. Culture-wise, it would be like having an "East Louisiana" and a "South Tennessee."

That would have been better. I've got a map that I've made with that before.
I live in Northern Mississippi we even call this part North Mississippi, we have far more in common with North Alabama than with south Mississippi.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
The Gulf Coast is really gerrymandered away in our current system here in the United States: A bit of Florida, that's mixed up with the South Florida urban areas, snowbirds, and the inland southerners that dominate the larger parts of Mississippi and Alabama.

There's Louisiana, but that's of course distinctly different with the French legacy in New Orleans - cajun style.

So that leaves us without a Gulf Coast homeland - as would be created by the split of the territory North/South.

So something like this.

Orange-Mississippi

Blue-Madison

New state.PNG
 
Not very likely, since they tried to get each new state to be roughly the same size.

Slightly more plausible would be if they decided to split them horizontally. That would probably better reflect the cultural differences between the Appalachians and the Gulf Coast. Culture-wise, it would be like having an "East Louisiana" and a "South Tennessee."

Like Montana? I'm not sure the physical size of a state was all that important in comparison to population.
 

Skokie

Banned
Like Montana? I'm not sure the physical size of a state was all that important in comparison to population.

I should have clarified. I meant the late 18th and early 19th centuries east of the Mississippi. They wanted states roughly the size of New York and Virginia. Jefferson headed up a committee to divide them up in that way. He came up with all sorts of kooky names.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
I should have clarified. I meant the late 18th and early 19th centuries east of the Mississippi. They wanted states roughly the size of New York and Virginia. Jefferson headed up a committee to divide them up in that way. He came up with all sorts of kooky names.

Can you share that map with us?
 
Its more likely for the Gulf State to be called West Florida as it completely mirrors Spanish west Florida, or at least what they claimed.
 
Not very likely, since they tried to get each new state to be roughly the same size.

Slightly more plausible would be if they decided to split them horizontally. That would probably better reflect the cultural differences between the Appalachians and the Gulf Coast. Culture-wise, it would be like having an "East Louisiana" and a "South Tennessee."

The overarching problem with the horizontal divide of the territory is that one state has access to the Gulf and the other dependent upon riverine trade via the Mississippi. Also are there actual cultural differences in the region at the time of territorialhood? The only rightful at the time I can think of is white and indian.

The necessity of easy access to ports and maritime trade did figure heavily into the current borders of Mississippi and Alabama. What would probably work for a horizontal split would be the state of Mississippi to be formed from the southern portion of the territory and the Cherokee relegated to the northern portion.

Also I think the name West Florida stinks.
 

Skokie

Banned
Also are there actual cultural differences in the region at the time of territorialhood? The only rightful at the time I can think of is white and indian.

I believe so. Appalachia was settled by white, poor, yeoman Pennsylvanians, Virginians and Carolinians, plus Ulster Irish and German immigrants. The mid-latitude areas of Alabama and Mississippi ("the Deep South") were populated by white, slave-holding Virginians, Carolinians and Georgians (mostly English descent) and their black slaves. Then there were the small creole populations on the Gulf Coast (French, Spanish, African and German; mostly Catholic). Mobile, Alabama has the oldest carnival in the country, don't forget.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
The overarching problem with the horizontal divide of the territory is that one state has access to the Gulf and the other dependent upon riverine trade via the Mississippi. Also are there actual cultural differences in the region at the time of territorialhood? The only rightful at the time I can think of is white and indian.

The necessity of easy access to ports and maritime trade did figure heavily into the current borders of Mississippi and Alabama. What would probably work for a horizontal split would be the state of Mississippi to be formed from the southern portion of the territory and the Cherokee relegated to the northern portion.

Also I think the name West Florida stinks.

A horizontal split is what the settlers in the Northern part of the territory wanted or at least the border pushed to the Pearl River.

At the time Natchez was the territorial capital and most of the territories population lived there. The Southern part of the territory in general had more population.

People constantly bitched and moaned about the city had so much control over the territory.

A horizontal split would have created a poorer state in the northern half and a much more rural one. By now though economically "Madison" would be about like the other states in the area.

As for the name do you like Natchez better? There was a short lived Natchez territory before the creation of the Mississippi territory there. If it had been split that way though the southern one would probably keep the name Mississippi. Alabama can't be used for the northern one because the Alabama river runs though the southern one.
 
I've seen historical sources placing the North-South division at either 32-22 or 32-28. Although at the time that seemed fine, it would create a large number of border towns: Vicksburg, Jackson, Meridian, Montgomery, and Tuskegee are all right around that latitude.
 
Top