The United Carolinas Cliché

A popular topic amongst AH Fans is the balkanization of the United States at important times in its history, such as after the Revolution, or during the Civil War.

Now, one of the more common Divided States of America clichés is the unification of North and South Carolina into a single Carolina. Still, I must question the plausibility of this cliché. Sure, a united Carolina looks pretty on paper, but it personally doesn't seem to be natural outcome of a failed U.S. scenario.

In any case, how plausible is a united Carolina after a failed United States in comparison to two independent Carolinas, or other unions such as a Georgia-South Carolina nation, or even a North Carolina-Virgina Nation?
 
Last edited:
Depends on the time of the POD. Virginia had an economy centered on tobacco growing, South Carolina had an economy originally based on indigo and jute. North Carolina was spun off from South Carolina because it was filling up with renegades from Virginia and neither SC nor VA wanted to police it. Fayetteville, the original capital, sprung up at the head of navigation the Cape Fear trading with the Moravian settlements around what's now Winston-Salem, but around the time of the American revolution, Virginian tobacco growers made Raleigh the capital.

So in short, before the Revolution, NC was economically oriented towards SC, after the Revolution, more towards Virginia.
 
if you have your POD earlier than the ARW, the Carolinas split officially in 1729 so you could change the government split in 1710 to keep the two together
 
Well, personally, I'd say that, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even now to some extent) South Carolina was much more similar to Georgia, and North Carolina to Virginia, than the two were to each other. I think the United Carolinas cliche comes from people who don't know much about the two states assuming that because they share a name, they must be similar...
 

Susano

Banned
Well, personally, I'd say that, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even now to some extent) South Carolina was much more similar to Georgia, and North Carolina to Virginia, than the two were to each other. I think the United Carolinas cliche comes from people who don't know much about the two states assuming that because they share a name, they must be similar...

Names are not just smoke and mirrors, though. Names give identity. And if after the ARW the USA fragment, then single states will most likely look out for likeminded states to enter smaller-scale unions or arrangments with - and it makes kinda sense for NC and SC to at least probe the possibility of an united Carolina in such negotiations then.
 
I seem to remember reading that North Carolina was somewhat split economically, with the north part leaning toward Virginia, and the southern part toward SC. Any chance of the state splitting?
 
Names are not just smoke and mirrors, though. Names give identity. And if after the ARW the USA fragment, then single states will most likely look out for likeminded states to enter smaller-scale unions or arrangments with - and it makes kinda sense for NC and SC to at least probe the possibility of an united Carolina in such negotiations then.
Names are really the biggest thing the two Carolinas have in common, though. As Mirza Khan points out, the two states are economically (and politically) oriented in different directions. The centers of each state are far away from each other, too-- it isn't like the Raleigh-Durham-Greensboro-Winston-Salem area is just across the state line from Charleston.
 
Top