205 - North America, the Balkans Version
North America must have the lowest nation/surface ratio in the world. The huge subcontinent is made up of only two sovereign states: Canada and the US (*). This is not to say that this was a ‘Manifest Destiny’: many regionalist revolts were crushed to form these two monoliths.
Which raises the question, at least in Matthew White’s mind: “What is the most fragmented that North America could have been?” White’s website (from the mid-nineties, but still online) serves up several ‘alternate history’ maps, that use a POD (point of divergence) somewhere in the past to construct a present slightly (or wildly) different from ours. White’s Balkanised North America, with 1787 as the POD, is by far the most interesting exercise.
“In this alternate reality, the westward expansion of the Anglo-American people proceeded pretty much as it did in our reality,” White writes, “but the United States government just couldn’t keep up. Every national identity crisis resolved itself in favor of the separatists instead.”
On the map, White details as sovereign, areas that:
“1. administered themselves as autonomous nations at some point in American history, or
2. shed blood to achieve or maintain their independence, or at least
3. threatened to.”
One important caveat: “The Native American tribes throughout the continent fit all these criteria, but I limited myself to only three native enclaves.”
- In 1787, a fire in the Philadelphia State House kills George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other members of the Constitutional Convention. This leads to a radically different constitution, and a fundamentally weaker Union.
- Vermont was an independent state until it joined the US as its fourteenth state in 1791. Not in White’s timeline: “Annoyed at the way the new federal government under John Adams is shaping up, Vermont refuses to join the Union, declaring itself an independent republic instead.”
- President Aaron Burr (in reality he was only vice-president at the time, if only by a hair’s breadth) annoys the French so much that Napoleon refuses to sell the gigantic Louisiana Territory to the US.
- In 1812, following an unsuccessful US invasion of Canada, New England secedes. Napoleon does sell Upper Louisiana to the US, but retains the densely populated area around Nouvelle Orléans.
- French Louisiana declares itself independent in 1815, refusing to recognize the Bourbon dynasty reinstated after Napoleon’s Waterloo defeat.
- Indian tribes east of the Mississippi are expelled to what later will become the Five Nations area (our Oklahoma, more or less).
- In 1835, Louisiana supports Texas independence from Mexico on condition that the new republic not join the US.
- Seminole Indians in Florida, together with runaway slaves, drive out the invading US in 1837.
- The Mormons found the theocratic state of Deseret within Mexican territory.
- Upper Canada and Quebec rebel from Great Britain and achieve independence in 1837-’41.
- The slave vs. free state quarrel, playing out more in favour of the South in this timeline, prevents an accession of settlers in Oregon to the US. They declare independence instead, in 1846.
- The Californian Gold Rush still happens as it did in our timeline, but it causes California and Deseret to claim independence from Mexico (in 1852) and Texas to push its border south to the Rio Grande. Mexico only manages to retain part of ‘our’ Arizona and New Mexico.
- Abe Lincoln elected president. The South secedes. The North, lacking the industrial muscle of New England, cannot subdue the South. The Five Nations take advantage by declaring independence.
- Canadian mismanagement of relations with the métis (a people made up of French and native components) in 1870-’72 leads to a successful revolt along the Red River, establishing a Métis Nation.
- Custer’s command is wiped out at Little Bighorn in 1876, leading to the establishment of the Dakota Nation.
Not mentioned in this timeline, but present on the map: the Maritime Dominion, a British toehold on the North American subcontinent (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia); and Newfoundland, either a separate British dominion or an independent state. Depending on the latter, this ‘balkanised’ North America is composed of no less than 17, and possibly 18 territories with different sovereignties. Compared with the real-time country that stretches ‘from sea to shining sea’, this USA has been reduced to a rump state – somewhat reminiscent of present-day Serbia relative to former Yugoslavia.
(*): Please note that the definition of ‘North America’ varies: in Anglo-America (i.e. English-speaking Canada and the US) it is often held to be synonymous with the US and Canada. Sometimes, Mexico is included. And/or St Pierre and Miquelon (a French-administered collectivité territoriale off Canada’s Atlantic coast). And/or Bermuda. All of which would take the number of sovereign states covering North America up to five – still a very small number.
This map was sent in by Kári Tulinius, Matthew White’s website can be found here.


What about Greenland? I would have thought that Greenland also gets to be considered a part of North America, lifting the number of states that might be considered to have territory there by one more. Mexico’s status probably depends on whether one considers Central America to be a separate region. The real difficulty comes, however, once we insist on the standard seven continents. This would mean that the Central American nations between the US and Venezuela would have to be deemed to fall into either South or North America. This might be even argued for the various island states from Cuba to Trinidad and Tobago. A great game for sticklers. Personally, I just like the idea of the nation/surface ratio. Surely a candidate for the list of strangest measuring units.
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — November 19, 2007 @
I think Geographers consider Mexico and the isthmus below it as far as Colombia to be part of North America. It’s probably one of those debatable points that gets tied up in nationalist pride, however.
Comment by Anthony (Los Angeles) — November 19, 2007 @
It’s a fun map. My quibbles: I have a hard time believing New England would secede, and that region was instrumental to the creation of the United States in the first place. (And over a failed invasion of Canada?) Also, the Louisiana Territory scenario seems convoluted; I think the mapmaker fabricated an outlandish excuse to include both an independent Louisiana and an expanded USA and CSA.
However, I have no trouble believing that, if not for a strong central government, Vermont, the Confederates, Texas, and California would be independent nations. The Dakota scenario was also an interesting twist.
Comment by El Santo — November 19, 2007 @
I have a hard time believing New England would secede
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention
Comment by reat — November 19, 2007 @
a) I love alternate histories. Thanks for a great map.
b) Antarctica and Australia are both considered continents (our definition of what is a “continent” is more about convention than anything else). Antarctica, as far as i know, is a continent only and has no national government, only a treaty system between several other nations to manage the landmass. Australia is both a continent consisting of one nation (Australia) - no?
Comment by kenwilson — November 19, 2007 @
No, North America is not the US and Canada and “sometimes” Mexico. It is Canada, the US, Mexico and “sometimes” the Central American states (which geologically just _are_ in North America), and Greenland when anybody remembers to include it. I have seen Iceland included, but that’s silly.
It’s only chauvinism that allows Mexico to be forgotten — usually chavinism in the air, not the person forgetting.
Comment by Lucy Kemnitzer — November 19, 2007 @
Ah, thank you, reat. I stand corrected.
Comment by El Santo — November 19, 2007 @
If this ever came true, Canada (in its much-reduced state) would have to be marked with an asterisk on any list of landlocked nations. It would have sea access only for the few months out of the year that Churchill and Moosoonee are ice-free.
Comment by Peter — November 19, 2007 @
Alaska? Do the Russians keep it?
Comment by JB — November 19, 2007 @
Very cool map. As a kid I loved this kind of thing and would try toredraw maps. Problem is I had no historical backing. This makes my old hobby fun again!
Comment by Mario — November 19, 2007 @
Where’s “Acadia”? I guess in this scenario, they were allowed to stay…
Comment by leMel — November 19, 2007 @
Regarding whether Mexico is in North America: Mexicans call United Statesians “NorteAmericano”. Of course, that’s partly because United Statesians call themselves “Americans”…
Comment by mollymooly — November 20, 2007 @
Also notice, California took the Baja with it too…
Comment by Yuval — November 20, 2007 @
Interesting map. I tried drawing these once or twice, but they never got too far (as I assumed the start as today’s USA).
However, I notice that the map assumes that everything, once split apart, would stay the same I can imagine some other happenings, much of which would combine items:
1: Would Vermont have stayed independent, or would they have combined with the Newly Independent New England in 1815?
2: How long before Russia began to harass Oregon? Where does Oregon end and Russian Alaska start? Does the USA even claim Oregon (does it instead become fully British? The russians respect THAT.)?
3: Does Kentucky and Missouri stay with the USA? If not, then maybe Kansas and “Five Nations” becomes part of the CSA (or is that of what’s now Greater Texas)?
4: The Metis and Dakota states become independent. Do they ally, or join up? I could see a bit of a southern expansion from the joining-up.
5: Here’s a thought: I heard somewhere that, if the South had won the war there was a possibility that the old Midwest (Great Lakes region and the states that touched them) might have seceded themselves. Add to that the lack of development (from the lack of a New England) and the olde USA itself may fall apart.
Just a few of my thoughts….
Comment by Don Hargraves — November 20, 2007 @
It looks to me like the southern portion of Russian America (Alaska) is included in Oregon.
Comment by Dziban — November 20, 2007 @
The Great Upheaval in Acadia occurred in the 1750’s-60’s, and the point of divergence in this map is 1787, so that could explain why there is no Acadian state.
Comment by Boznia — November 20, 2007 @
Wow, I remember running into this when I was really into internet alternate history communities - geez, that was, like, 2000? 2001? I was just a kid then…
And from the same time (but not really a map) came another hyper-Balkanized America: the world of Crimson Skies. And what neat flags! I mean, okay, the Hollywood Oscar flag is kinda chintzy but… that Pacifica flag? Man. No wonder I got more dorky about this stuff as I got older.
Comment by jeff n. — November 20, 2007 @
I mean, it’s way better than the new Cascadian flag.
Comment by jeff n. — November 20, 2007 @
Very interresting map, I think that the flag of Québec is innapropriate though (it looks ‘hungarian’!).
Comment by mayotte — November 20, 2007 @
A very similar map is here.
http://jiltanith.thefifthimperium.com/Collections/RussianAmerikaChapters/RA-NorthAmerica.jpg
This is the map that goes with the book “Russian Amerika”, the first part of which is readable at the same website. It’s interesting to compare the two.
Comment by DancingFool — November 20, 2007 @
Too bad the POD wasn’t between 1625 and 1674, that way New York would have stayed Nieuw Amsterdam and the area around it, the New Netherland territory (Nieuw-Nederland, Novum Belgium)would have provided a Dutch nucleas to the North American continent !
From Rhode Island (Roodt Eylandt) to Delaware, anyone would still be speaking Jersey Dutch !
Comment by Johan Van Loon — November 20, 2007 @
I seem to recall that British Columbia only consented to join Canada on condition that the Canadian Pacific Railroad was completed by a (revised) deadline. Had this immense engineering feat not been achieved, or if negotiations had gone a little differently, BC might have joined the US or remained independent. Should an independent BC also be included, or do predating postulated points of divergence preclude it? The map seems to subsume BC into Oregon.
Comment by Terry Hunt — November 20, 2007 @
check out my blog at http://www.extrapreneur.wordpress.com
Comment by extrapreneur — November 20, 2007 @
[...] Found via Strange Maps. [...]
Pingback by Fragmented Alternate North America » Needcoffee.com — November 20, 2007 @
There’s a whole site with these sorts of maps, AH.com:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=7
Comment by Tom Veil — November 20, 2007 @
Aye, ye forgot Jefferson, the movement in Northern Calif. and Southern oregon, 34 attempts to create a new state, the last in 97 , when 27 Norcal counties voted to secede….also, the strong regionalism in the Pac Northwest , which Nor Cal is geographically/emotionally/culturally a part of, stretching from Eureka across to Alturas northward to Alaska, recall Alaska even voted in seperatist governor in the 80’s…..its stonger and more real than any other seperatist movement….
Comment by Belua multorum es capitum — November 20, 2007 @
Why not have the Republic of West Florida on this map? Some of the other nations never actually existed, but it actually did. Why include it in the CSA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_West_Florida
Comment by badger — November 20, 2007 @
[...] retenu un des derniers articles en date qui montre l’Amérique du Nord revisitée, balkanisée en fait. Son auteur, Matthew White, a créé cette carte en partant du principe que [...]
Pingback by Réécrire l’Histoire « Les livres que je lis : le blog de Phil — November 20, 2007 @
Ok, other countries may be debatable… but who *ever* leaves Mexico out of “North America”? I have never heard *anyone* describe North America as just Canada and the USA before. I would have thought such an idea existed only in the minds of racists, to be completely frank about it.
Comment by corbyz — November 20, 2007 @
As for Alaska, it’s conceivable that Japan might’ve bought it instead. The Russians were looking for someone to sell it to, after all.
One wonders how the World Wars would’ve playe out there. Would all those states have joined the same side (or at least been neutral), or might some have found themselvse on opposite sides?
I do wonder whether the Civil War would’ve happened at all without the slave/free status of the western territories stoking the flames of rivalry. Alternately, depending on how that timeline’s Constitution was structured, the north and the south might’ve separated earlier and less violently.
Comment by Nik-a-Nik-Nik — November 20, 2007 @
Things would be a little different concerning West Florida in this alternate universe. After the US purchased Louisiana in 1803, they claimed West Florida on the grounds that it was included in their purchase of Louisiana, because the boundary was left ambiguous in the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, which transferred Louisiana from Spain to France. The thing is, in this universe, the US never purchased the lower part of Louisiana, so they wouldn’t be involved in the dispute, it would be between Spain and France.
I do think a different Republic of West Florida would have existed in this universe, but not for the same reasons. The northern boundary of West Florida wasn’t set until the Treaty of San Lorenzo in 1795, which is after this map’s point of divergence. What if this treaty never occurred? American settlers would most likely move in and claim the disputed land, forming a different West Florida than the one we know.
Another possible problem with this map is the US buying only the northern section of Louisiana. When Monroe and Livingston went to Paris, their primary goal was to purchase the New Orleans area, not the entirety of Louisiana. I can’t see the US buying any part of Louisiana without New Orleans included.
Comment by Boznia — November 20, 2007 @
mayotte: the Quebec flag on this map is the Patriotes’ Flag. The current Quebec flag was only introduced in 1948. What I question, though, is the fact that Quebec is called “Quebec” on the map. It wasn’t at the time, so I would expect that it be called some variation of “Canada”.
I also question the use of the current Canada flag. Since I believe the two red bars represent the oceans, it doesn’t make sense in this timeline. The Upper Canada Rebellion also apparently had its own flag.
Comment by Marc — November 21, 2007 @
Don’t know how far along the timeline extends, but I’d hope that the Conch Republic got to leave the Confederacy… because if at first you don’t secede, try try again.
Comment by Northbound — November 23, 2007 @
The Madawaska republic isn’t on there either.
Comment by Matthew E — November 24, 2007 @
I think with Greenland he was just leaving it alone because, while it does have far reaching home-rule it still is very connected to Denmark. Denmark’s monarch is their chief of state. There was also never any conflict between the two since Denmark did an excellent job of suppressing an exploitation of the island by outsiders. I would assume that because of this good relationship, and therefore lack of any points of contention to hypothesize on it wasn’t included here, and because I don’t think it’s technically a completely sovereign nation even though it has powerful home rule.
or something along those lines :D
Comment by Connor — November 25, 2007 @
The very term “balkanization” is funny.
From 1945 - 1990 we had peace in the Balkans. At the same period USA was permanently in the wars: Korea, Vietnam, Cuban crisis, engagement in other wars in Central America and Asia, Cold War - just to name some of them.
From 1991 - 1995 we had a war to dismantle Yugoslavia, mainly because EU and USA could not reach decesive agreement on the separation of Yugoslav federal units, was encouraging Belgrade regime to keep the zombie alive, and forced the arms ban on Croatia and Slovenia, who were defending themselves from aggresion of federal (mainly Serbian) troops.
Up to this very day, USA was in the war in Iraq (first eddition), many smaller wars like Somalia, and Iraq again (second eddition, G.W.Bush editor).
Oh, yes, and there is a general war on terror.
Balkanisation? Never, in any point at the history of this area there was not a single politician saying that the Constitution is a “goddamn piece of paper” - on the contrary, Yugoslav constitution from 1974 gave permit to every federal unit to self determination and seccession. That was deniend to Slovenia and Croatia. Not implementing the constitution was the cause of the war here.
Balkanization is not separation to smaller territories and new countries - it is when you have politicians that lie, use tricks to achieve their goals, that are corrupted, that lead aggresive agenda, that use nationalism and support of the masses, give false leads and arguments, use immoral and illegal things to surpress the opponents and criticizm.
Now, try to find Balkanization in the USA, which is now widely used.
Comment by Mladen Postruznik — November 25, 2007 @
The Bahamas is included on the map, without any history or timeline included. Why is that? Settled in 1647 as an independent republic, reclaimed by the British Crown on behalf of the 6 Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas, reclaimed yet again on behalf of the Crown by a Royal Governor in 1729, absorbing the Loyalists and the slaves fleeing the revolution in 1783, repelling an attempted American invasion in that same year, and remaining British (and consequently freeing the slaves in 1834/1838) until 1973, while maintaining very closely its American ties, and even settling and building parts of South Florida (Miami and Key West come to mind), where should it stand?
Comment by Scavella — November 25, 2007 @
[...] just for today, I’m posting something completely different. This is from the website Strange Maps, which I visit from time to time, and which never [...]
Pingback by Grief Overload; Different Maps : Blogworld — November 25, 2007 @
[...] Comment on 205 - North America, the Balkans Version by ConnorI think with Greenland he was just leaving it alone because, while it does have far reaching home-rule it still is very connected to Denmark. Denmark’s monarch is their chief of state. There was also never any conflict between the two … [...]
Pingback by America » Blog Archives » Australia to Ratify Kyoto, America Stands Alone — November 25, 2007 @
This map really skips the value of coastline and ports. If California was to control Baja then the money map here would be way off. By far the majority of the money would be in this new uber California because of its enormous trading advantage with Asia.
Besides which, the notion that Oregon, Washington and Vancouver would split from California if California were a nation is very unlikely first for cultural reasons, with the exception of rural parts of Oregon and eastern Washington the whole stip is extremely liberal politically, and secondly for trade reasons again related to the shared coastline.
The more likely map would have the entire Pacific coast from Vancouver to Baja united due to the shared coastline and the shared social values that the easy-living Pacific coastal lifestyle lends itself towards. Face it, life on the Pacific coast is simply easier from all sorts of geographical and meteorological perspectives. Due to the enormous number of ports under its control and abundant coastal agricultural production with mild weather and steady rainfall this would be a huge economic powerhouse.
Just look directly across the Pacific to see how this works. The emphasis on the power of the coast is really what historically unites China. China’s west is really just a giant buffer zone to keep the coastal regions united. It’s on the coast where all of the real economic power resides.
Comment by Whataboutports — November 25, 2007 @
No way in hell Mexico would surender control of lower california.
Why do you american fascists always have mental masturbation regarding taking over the peninsula.
That´s why I seriously don´t like american written alternative history. Every other story ends with you guys parting up Mexico to your whims without no opposition.
Comment by beam — November 25, 2007 @
If not for the Union running the lawfully elected, CSA sympathetic, state government into exile from Missouri that state would likely not be part of the United States. Unless one considers that without New England agitation against slavery (which would not have occurred if that region had already seceded) there likely never would have been a Civil war in the first place leaving those two regions joined.
Comment by Michael — November 25, 2007 @
Actually, the same goes for West Virginia too. And while Kentucky wavered, it was part of the CSA as well.
Comment by Michael — November 25, 2007 @
Interesting map. One small correction to consider: Maryland was poised to join the Confederacy, and would have had Lincoln not sent troops to arrest whole state legislature.
Comment by Karl — November 25, 2007 @
Lookie, lookie, how they are all gonna divide USA, in no time. Let them play…
But USA is strong, and united, and have your civil rights deprived and denied thru the Patriotic laws and acts, so just shut up here, or the instances - from NSA, CIA, DEA, and others will make your mouths shut up.
Thanks God for our strong president, you must not discuss it further. I’ll impeach the citizens!!!
Or you are gonna be arrested and sent to Guantanamo, in USA. Blah. Fuc…. Cuba.
There we will taser you, and further, maybe make a water torture. Depending on our mood. And what you know about some tampering with the USA borders? And we will make you belive that “a Constitution is a goddamn peace of paper”, boys.
That’s it.
Yabba dubba doo - interesting map for new prisoners. It is.
Comment by Mladen Postruznik — November 26, 2007 @
[...] America, Balkans Version November 26, 2007 at 1:58 am | In History | Us, the U.S., Balkanized. [...]
Pingback by America, Balkans Version « Ireneo’s Memory — November 26, 2007 @
Bit puzzled by the fact that Canada kept it’s flag (established in the 1960s) whereas Quebec now has a entirely new flag. Seems probable
Quebedc could still have a flag similar to the one it has nowadays.
Comment by Bob — November 26, 2007 @
Kentucky wasn’t “officially” part of the CSA. It actually had two state capitals during the Civil War - one CSA, one USA.
So, if you’re going to say that the Civil War did happen, and was successful for the CSA, I’d think you’d need to include Kentucky (and probably West Virginia) as part of the CSA.
Comment by badqat — November 26, 2007 @
I want you.
Comment by kob — November 26, 2007 @
Just thought I’d point out that I live in Texas, and I have never met a single person who doesn’t consider Mexico part of North America proper.
We were taught that Central America is part of N. America, but more than that, that there was absolutely no question that Mexico is part of North America.
In fact, this is the first time I’ve ever heard someone say N. America is just the US and Canadia, and actually be serious when they said it instead of attempting to be racist towards Mexicans.
Comment by Kyle — November 26, 2007 @
Err, that should read Canada. I was thinking about how I hoped to not misspell a word, since that would make Texans look stupider than people already think we seem. And it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I thought, “Don’t spell ‘Canada’ ‘Canadia’” right as I typed that.
:(
Comment by Kyle — November 26, 2007 @
The state of Michigan was also subject to a successionist movement. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan#Superior_.28proposed_state.29
“Superior is the name of a longstanding 51st state proposal involving the secession of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from the rest of the state of Michigan. Named for Lake Superior, the idea has gained serious attention at times, though it is quite unlikely to ever come to fruition due to the strong connections that were cemented by the completion of the Mackinac Bridge, which gave the peninsula a direct highway connection to the rest of the state.”
Comment by Jym — November 26, 2007 @
If the federal government were that much weaker, there might never have been a CSA. Also, as others above pointed out, if there had been one, Maryland and Kentucky would likely be a part of it.
Comment by Steve — November 26, 2007 @
This map completely ignores the many succession movements within Mexico and the filibusters from the United States who sometimes set up short-lived states in Mexico.
The most unusual foreign intervention in Mexico was probably when the Republic of Texas sent its navy to the Yucatan during one of the seven times the Yucatan Peninsula succeeded from Mexico. In 1841 the Republic of Texas and the independent government in the Yucatan Peninsula conducted diplomatic relations.
Mexico has been so poorly governed throughout most of its history, that I think that it could easily have broken into more parts. As well, Santa Anna could have been prevented from centralizing the country, or he could have sold additional parts of the country, such as Baja California.
The cartographer may be interested in the short-lived Republic or the Rio Grande, which existed when local business interests and successionists from Mexico and Texas joined together in and around what are now Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
For a starting point about the Republic of the Rio Grande, see: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/ngr1.html
I agree with several earlier posters that this map could better show a Balkanized alternative history by studying Mexican history. Some Texas history would help soon.
Comment by Andrew — November 26, 2007 @
“French Louisiana declares itself independent in 1815, refusing to recognize the Bourbon dynasty reinstated after Napoleon’s Waterloo defeat.”
The present-day Acadian flag is actually shown on the map below Louisiana. I would have thought that the newly independent state would have dropped the name based on the kings of the hated Bourbon dynasty and changed its name to “Acadie”. It would have welcomed Acadians from everywhere, including those of St. Pierre and Miquelon just returning from lengthy exile in France during the Napoleonic Wars.
Comment by Un Acadien errant — November 26, 2007 @
Many Mexicans consider themselves Central Americans and in the grade school textbooks, our North and South America are combined into one Continent-America.
Comment by bob — November 26, 2007 @
Had history gone that way, Newfoundland almost certainly wouldn’t have the pictured flag–the Golden Shaft–but the pink, white, and green tricolour.
Comment by Jack — November 26, 2007 @
The Metis Nation has a flag which shows the infinity symbol.
Comment by Chris Baker — November 26, 2007 @
you could develop this into a video game, something like civilization, strategy, i’d put some more effort into your graphics though
Comment by comment — November 26, 2007 @
[...] Fun map from Strange Maps. Posted by: John Halton @ 7:11 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Pingback by The Boar’s Head Tavern » The Balkanized States of America — November 27, 2007 @
The Republic of Texas would surely have been able to retain at least its full historical territory as shown at http://texas.freecountries.org/rt-shape-131×180.gif because the Compromise of 1850 would never have happened, which stole the NW 1/3 of our area. You’re right, however, to show Texas as never having needed to join the CSA, since its 1845 annexation was illegal/unconstitutional in the first place, just as Hawaii was later occupied and illegally annexed the same way.
Comment by Gned the Gnome — November 27, 2007 @
[...] http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/11/1…alkans-version/ [...]
Pingback by If Seperatist Movements in America had succeeded ..... | Bill's Rants — November 27, 2007 @
Some maps in a simliar spirit, though both are a not-too-distant-future kind of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Union
A computer game (which I’ve never played) in which the gamer takes the role of one of the factions vying for power in the former US.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/f(gml.html
Map from the inside cover of Give Me Liberty, a Frank Miller/Dave Gibbons comic series set in the future. It’s less interesting out of context like this, but still of note…
Comment by Patrick — November 27, 2007 @
What about Massachusetts? It staged a successful coup against England in the 1600s, but allowed itself to be “forgiven” at the next change of King…
Comment by MA Native — November 27, 2007 @
[...] a whole new level. What story would you write if this was what North America had shaped up to be. 205 - North America, the Balkans Version « strange maps: 0 [...]
Pingback by Story generating idea - Wordtrip.com — November 27, 2007 @
[...] fire killing many of the Constitutional Convention. Instead of 3 countries, we could have had 19. StrangeMaps has the tale… and the [...]
Pingback by Plunderbund - » A Balkanized US? — November 27, 2007 @
[...] clicked the link to see that Mac/PC ad it was gone. Here someone put the whole thing on YouTube.“What is the most fragmented that North America could have been?” It’s an alternate history map of what North America would look like if the unifying events [...]
Pingback by No reason to hold 'em - Clicked - msnbc.com — November 27, 2007 @
The three Maritime Provinces, while still separate British colonies, met in 1864 to talk about Maritime Union. Representatives of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec)came to the same meeting and were very persuasive, so much so that out it came the Confederation of all five colonies. A United Maritime Provinces could have been formed instead, as an independent Dominion of the British Empire.
Comment by Bluenoser — November 28, 2007 @
“No way in hell Mexico would surender control of lower california.
Why do you american fascists always have mental masturbation regarding taking over the peninsula.
That´s why I seriously don´t like american written alternative history. Every other story ends with you guys parting up Mexico to your whims without no opposition.”
This would be a different Mexico and Different United States, beam. You couldn’t imagine all of California leaving Mexico?
I think an independent New York has to be considered. There have been secessionist movements there.
I also agree that the CSA would likely include some other northern areas.
Alaska could have been part of Canada, Oregon, independent or part of another nation.
Maybe Japan would have claimed more of the Pacific as someone suggested above. Maybe they would have taken Hawaii, or maybe some European nation would have. But my guess is that Hawaii would likely be independent today however that went.
World wars? With the scenario in the above map, I definitely don’t see a second World War.
Comment by John Delano — November 28, 2007 @
[...] if it wasn’t really the United States of America? SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Divided States of Americas”, url: [...]
Pingback by Divided States of Americas — November 28, 2007 @
Mladen, don’t kid yourself. The only reason Yogoslavia didn’t Balkanise immediately after WWII is because Tito held it together by brute force. It was just a matter of time. No Tito figurehead, no Yugoslavia. Look at the remnants of the former Soviet Union if you’re having trouble following the thought process. Also, there are plenty of people who do not consider Mexico to be part of North America proper. It’s Central America. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with geography. Lastly, the idea of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula becoming a separate state is a hoot. It’s unreasonable to expect that many welfare recipients, social misfits and genetic curiosities to govern themselves.
Comment by Mike — November 29, 2007 @
Also don’t forget the Republic of Indian Stream in present day northern NH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream
Comment by cms — November 29, 2007 @
“This map really skips the value of coastline and ports. If California was to control Baja then the money map here would be way off. By far the majority of the money would be in this new uber California because of its enormous trading advantage with Asia.”
- But perhaps given this timeline, California wouldn’t have been allowed to grow to what it is now. I doubt there would be any single area in the present-day country which would be the identical in population, wealth, economic power, etc. under this scenario.
Comment by cms — November 29, 2007 @
“- But perhaps given this timeline, California wouldn’t have been allowed to grow to what it is now. I doubt there would be any single area in the present-day country which would be the identical in population, wealth, economic power, etc. under this scenario.”
True. The powerful port area on this map may in fact be “Oregon,” which holds both Vancouver and the Puget Sound, two highly significant ports today for Asian goods. In fact, I think that the money map underrates the economic power of the Pacific Northwest.
Comment by El Santo — November 29, 2007 @
[...] Won Posted in November 30th, 2007 by rob in whatever This is really interesting to me. From the original article: North America must have the lowest nation/surface ratio in the world. The huge subcontinent is [...]
Pingback by » North America if the Losers Won rob’s place: putting the fun back into random — November 30, 2007 @
[...] Strangemaps looks at what would have happened if every national identity crisis resolved itself in favor of the separatists instead? [...]
Pingback by What if we had lost the war? | KevinDonahue.com — November 30, 2007 @
You should have continued with some incident at the beginning of the 20-th century including assassination of a prince and start a world war… and a lot of turmoils up until now …
I mean if you are to win some kind of balkanization price
Comment by zelnicki — December 1, 2007 @
[...] Balkanized North America: what if every region that started independent had stayed that way, and every region that threatened to secede from the US or Canada had succeeded? (via ***Dave) [...]
Pingback by Linkage: Authorship, Allergies & Alternate History | K-Squared Ramblings — December 2, 2007 @
[...] found this map over at Strange Maps, which as you can guess from the title is all about strange and unusual [...]
Pingback by Maps As The Could Have Been And Still Could Be « The Reluctant Optimist — December 5, 2007 @
It’s important to remember the significance of water communications at the key dates. It’s almost impossible for Upper Canada and Quebec to have achieved full separation unilaterally then, since Britain could so easily have kept access to the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes - much more easily than rebels could have got at the same places by land (and this would have been much more valuable, what with no diversion of economic resources by the Erie Canal; in fact more of the US Great Lakes littoral might have split off to tap into British free trade). A far more likely scenario is the splitting off of one or two interior secessionist states, rather like the Boer Republics, away from water access. The same would apply to the Metis state, pushing it back from the Lake of the Woods and the upper Red River of the North, and to the Oregon territory, which wouldn’t have presented a diplomatic crisis partitioning it between Britain and the USA (don’t think of it as connected to “Canada” but as a different British possession reached by sea). All these British possessions would have reached responsible self government - incremental independence - on about the same time scale as in real life, only now there would be secessionist interior states as well. Unless and until gold or something was discovered, as happened to the Boer Republics…
Conclusion: more independent-but-British commonwealth countries as well (including greater Oregon), where water access allowed, plus more US secession in Minnesota/Wisconsin/Illinois/Indiana/Michigan and perhaps even parts of Ohio.
Comment by P.M.Lawrence — December 8, 2007 @
The general exclusion of Mexico from this otherwise interesting map is very unfortunate. Mexico has a rich history is that history is replete with successfull (Texas) as well as failed independance movements. (Yucatan, Sonora, and other states)
Mexico is a huge nation and it is an intergal part of North America. The Mexican Republic is made up of 32 separate States, each with it’s own unique identity. To ignore or minimize Mexico’s contribution to the history of North America is puzzling at best if not typical of the unspoken racism so pervasive in Anglo-North America. By the way, don’t forget to factor in on the next map the results of a successful William Walker expedition (1853) to Cabo San Lucas and his attempted establishment of the Republic of Lower California.
-Cliff Mickelson
Comment by Cliff Mickelson — December 10, 2007 @
It would have been so right for our America if this had actually happened:
“In 1835, Louisiana supports Texas independence from Mexico on condition that the new republic not join the US.”
Comment by American Veteran — December 16, 2007 @
LOVE the map! i’ve actually been working on my own version of one of these “Days of Futures Past” maps using the My Maps feature on Google Maps. it’s not quite done, i’ve been spending small amounts of time here and there tidying up the boundaries, but the rough outline is in place. hope the link works: View Larger Map my thinking very much followed that of the map maker above. the idea first came to me to draw the map when i was looking at the (then) new Louisiana quarter, and remembering just how big the Louisiana purchase was, then thinking, “What if it didn’t happen?” (making the Louisian Purchase, or rather the lack of one, my POD)
as to the Mexico question, of course it’s part of North America. but no, i didn’t include any breakup of that country in my map because, as an ethnocentricaly educated American, i know almost nothing about our neighbors history. sorry.
Comment by nickbilz — December 25, 2007 @
Posted by Peter:
“If this ever came true, Canada (in its much-reduced state) would have to be marked with an asterisk on any list of landlocked nations. It would have sea access only for the few months out of the year that Churchill and Moosoonee are ice-free.”
Not so. I’m sure the St. Lawrence would still be developed for ocean going vessels, make Toronto, Hamilton, and Thunder Bay important Great Lake ports.
Comment by Shane — January 19, 2008 @
Mexico would have fragmented in this timeline, as there were 4 (or 5) secessions from Mexico between 1835 and 1845: Texas, the Rio Grande Republic, Yucutan, and California. There were actually two California Republics: one Anglo, and one formed by the remaining Mexicans who’d been abandoned by the central government - they managed to hold out against the American Californians for a while. There was also the Caste War in the Yucutan, which resulted in a Mayan country, which was recognized by the British until 1893. (The Republic of Yucutan rejoined Mexico to gain Mexican assistance in the Caste War.)
All that should add at least one more California (would Baja have remained with Mexico, or the Californios?) an extra country between Texas and Mexico, and one or two extra “Central American” countries between Mexico and Guatemala. Going south, there would be a “Mosquito Coast” republic in what is now eastern Nicaragua, but the rump U.S. may not have had the wherewithal to detach Panama from Colombia (and there was no real “separatist” movement in 1903).
Comment by Anthony — January 22, 2008 @
[...] It is Canada, the US, Mexico and “sometimes” the Central American states (which geologically just _are_ in North America), and Greenland when anybody remembers to include it. Too bad the POD wasn’t between 1625 and 1674, that way New York would have stayed Nieuw Amsterdam and the area around it, the New Netherland territory (Nieuw-Nederland, Novum Belgium)would have provided a Dutch nucleas to the North American continent ! After the US purchased Louisiana in 1803, they claimed West Florida on the grounds that it was included in their purchase of Louisiana, because the boundary was left ambiguous in the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, which transferred Louisiana from Spain to France. From 1991 - 1995 we had a war to dismantle Yugoslavia, mainly because EU and USA could not reach decesive agreement on the separation of Yugoslav federal units, was encouraging Belgrade regime to keep the zombie alive, and forced the arms ban on Croatia and Slovenia, who were defending themselves from aggresion of federal (mainly Serbian) troops. Settled in 1647 as an independent republic, reclaimed by the British Crown on behalf of the 6 Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas, reclaimed yet again on behalf of the Crown by a Royal Governor in 1729, absorbing the Loyalists and the slaves fleeing the revolution in 1783, repelling an attempted American invasion in that same year, and remaining British (and consequently freeing the slaves in 1834/1838) until 1973, while maintaining very closely its American ties, and even settling and building parts of South Florida (Miami and Key West come to mind), where should it stand? read more [...]
Pingback by Maps » Comment on 205 - North America, the Balkans Version by Mladen …- Maps — January 24, 2008 @
There’s currently a movement in the north states of Mexico calling for the creation of the so called “Republica del Norte”, which includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila. So far this movement is nothing to worry about.
Comment by Joe Zaragoza — February 2, 2008 @
[...] Anyone who has ever looked at an upside down map of the world knows that a familiar place can look radically different when looked at in a different way. Strange Maps is a site dedicated to these quirky cartographers. My personal favorite include the night-time illumination map of Korea, the blonde map of Europe and a maximally fragmented North America. [...]
Pingback by The Quixotic Engineer — February 3, 2008 @
Of course, this map is inaccurate as of 1996, because the balkanized North American countries would not not have been able to cooperate against the onslaught of Nazi Germany, and the majority of Eastern North America–to the extent of needed industrial bases and resources–would be under the flag aus Deutschland.
Comment by Joe Fibbitz — March 5, 2008 @
[...] Link (via The Website at the End of the Universe) Posted in Ephemera March 6th, 2008 by Chip [...]
Pingback by Science Fiction Brewed Fresh Daily » Blog Archive » Balkanized North America — March 6, 2008 @
This is really interesting. My only nitpick is about the definition of North America. First, we in the U.S. and Canada consider it a continent, not a subcontinent (and why not? It’s much larger than Europe, Australia or Antarctica, and it’s bound to South America by a much thinner landmass than Europe is to Asia). Second, we generally define it as including not just Mexico, but all of Central America and the Caribbean. South America starts at Colombia and Venezuela; everything north of that is North America. That’s what we are always taught in school.
Comment by Bob — June 19, 2008 @
“Settled in 1647 as an independent republic, reclaimed by the British Crown…” At that date, it was the English Crown.
Comment by P.M.Lawrence — June 21, 2008 @
Why is everyone so touchy on the instance that N. America would mean Canada and USA? Yes it can sometimes beg clarification depending on the context, but so do these:
Who wants to offer their understanding of Latin America? Is all of South and Central America included, or just Spanish speaking countries? Maybe Brazil’s included, but not Belize right? Similarly I’ve often heard Spanish thrown around for someone Hispanic, but I don’t get all huffy about it, I just ask them to clarify “You mean Spain Spanish or Hispanic?”
Who here says Asian when they are talking about someone or something ethnically Mongoloid? Aren’t you scared of offending the remaining Caucasoids of Asia… its a big varied continent you know!
Start claiming racism and superiority complexes on these scenarios! Lighten up people, don’t make us all swallow some hidden guilt or prejudice you have.
Comment by BAT — June 24, 2008 @
maps fun…
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…
Trackback by maps fun — July 15, 2008 @