|
Many of the states he says would go one way or another, would actually split, for Example Pennsylvania, East of Blue Mountain will go with the west of the Atlantic States, but West of Blue Mountain (The Appalachian Mountains and Western PA) would go with whoever controls the Ohio Valley.
Another problem is he seems NOT to fully understand the US River System, he shows the Upper Mississippi River System and the Missouri River being center to his Central North American Republic, but then splits the Ohio River valley, which is the key to his whole "Central North American Republic". Furthermore he accepts that the South has important differences with the Mid-West, but ignores the fact that rivers UNITE people not divides them. i.e. the Ohio River and Lower Mississippi River Valleys will sooner or later become part of the "Central North American Republic" whether their want to or not. People tend to forget that North America (North of Mexico) has two large, but NOT interconnected water systems, the Great lakes and the Mississippi River and its tributaries. While these two water systems are NOT interconnected, the distance between them is often less then 20 miles over relatively flat terrain, thus even in Indian Times the are from Quebec to New Orleans were viewed as one big interconnected country. The Indians lost it to the French, who then lost it to the Americans do to the American's greater population Growth in the Colonial period. If the populations of the two regions had been more evenly matched, like there are now, New France would not only have survived, it would have prevailed (The the various Indian Confederations of the Mid-West Tribes would also prevailed).
If you takes the above into consideration and change his maps to reflect those realities, the East Coast Republic will NOT end at the western borders of those states, but at the Appalachian mountains. New York, Virginia and North Caroline losing their Western Mountain regions (Shenandoah Mountain will stay with the East, do to the flow of the Shenandoah river into the Potomac, but the little piece of Virgina to the South of West Virgina will be lost to Kentucky or West Virginia (West Virginia will go completely to the Mid-West as will Kentucky, do to the pull of the Ohio even through both States were settled by people from the South as opposed to people from the North).
As to Texas, I see it dividing for other reasons. First East Texas is and always has been part of the Deep South, and like the rest of the Deep South more worried about New Orleans then anything to the West. This will pull East Texas to the Central North American Republic. South Texas greatest concern is the Rio Grand river. I see it breaking with the rest of Texas over control of that River and merging with the northern Mexican States whose main concern is that same river. It is their life blood and control over its entire length from the present State of Colorado to Brownsville will be important to ALL of the people living in those areas.
I see a similar maneuver for the Colorado River which will pill in Southern California, Northern California will match up better with the Northwest and if a breakup occur that is how it will go. Someone will get Utah, more out of default then actually wanting Salt Lake City, given that the Colorado River is the nearest concern, and Southern California going will the Colorado River, I See Salt Lake City doing the Same (Remember Salt Lake City is in the Great basin, all water in the Basin goes to the Great Salt Lake, which has no outlet to the sea, thus a fairly isolated piece of territory within North America).
Notice my division differs more on details then the authors. The Author views the breakup of the United States as following the Soviet and Yugoslavia pattern, pre-existing borders are preserved. I tend to view the split more like the later part of the Yugoslavia breakup, a fight over new borders within the new states. Now the difference will be that even in Bosnia, the tendency was to keep pre-existing borders, even if that meant the movement of people (Remember Ethnic cleaning?). In the US Ethnic Cleaning does NOT solve the problem of which state shall the area be in? At that point economics will be the driving force and that will be driven by how the rivers flow (And the trade routes follow the rivers). Thus my dispute is more over the exact borders then anything else. Rivers are lousy borders, Mountains are the best. This has been ignored since Colonial times since both sides of any river was controlled by the US (The State borders were mere administrative lines, not real borders in the sense people had to show papers if a border was crossed). Even the Great Lakes tend to unite the areas on both sides of the lakes more then divide Canada from the US As does the Rio Grand, but the Rio Grand is generally NOT considered a navigable river, the main view of the Rio Grand is who gets its flow of water?).
Thus, while I have major objections to any breakup of the US, the exact borders will differ from those projected here (and elsewhere). Remember Rivers Unite, Mountains Divide, and given those geographical facts, sooner or later the Mississippi River Valley will become one nation. This will extend to Canada ether incorporating Canada or in an understanding like the one that exist today between the US and Canada (Legally Independent of each other, economically, Culturally and for all other practical purposes one nation). This power house will then have to decide what will be its relationship with the East Coast, Florida (Which may go on its own), The Carolinas (If South Caroline somehow gets North Caroline to merge with it rather then the rest of the East Coast), Atlanta and Georgia (Which will tend to go with Charleston SC then the rest of the South), The Rio Grand and Colorado River Valleys, and the North West (Including British Columbia and the rest of the Columbia and Snake River System). Yes, I see British Columbia leaving Canada at the same time as the break up of the US, any breakup of the US will lead to a Breakup of Canada and probably Mexico. Mexico, being centered on the Mexican Vally will re-emerge as an Independent Country, but it will try to control the Rio Grand and Colorado Republics (And for that reason I see both Republics surviving even as the Rest of the former US and Canada becomes one nation).
AS I was saying, I see the Central North American Republic slowly taking over all of the areas that borders it (except in the South West). Sooner or later including even Alaska and the East Coast. Trade will force this unity, for people will remember the ease it was to trade across state borders today. They is even a chance that the Rio Grand and Colorado River Republics will join, but probably prefer to become border states between the US and Mexico (IF the US or Mexico stays down for a much longer period then the other, these two river republics will join the one that solves its problems first, which may be Mexico, but I see both the US and Mexico solving its problems about the same time so a better then even chance for the two River Republics to stay independent of both.
More an observation on HOW the US will break up then any opinion that it will. A break up will require something bigger then what hit the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, i.e. a drop in oil prices, when oil was its may way to pay for what it imported from the west, and an inability to cut back on those imports (Generally industrial in nature, but including Computers) to match what it could export. This caused a cash problem within the Soviet Union which lead to the need to cut back government expenditures sever ly (i.e. required pulling Soviet Forces not only from Afghanistan but Eastern Europe, converting military industries to making Civilian Goods do to the cut back in buying military equipment etc). People forget the main reason for the Soviet Union's Collapse was it was spending 40% of its GNP on Defense, a rate that is unheard of except for brief periods (i.e. during WWI and WWII) in any other country (Israel is on this same path, but that is a different story). The Soviet Union had to get its military spending down to less then 10% of tis GNP and that took years, given the huge military expenditures prior to the 1990s. The US is spending less then 6% of its GNP on Defense, so a collapse is less likely, but if the downturn do to the collapse of the real Estate Bubble is severe as many says it will become a collapse is NOT impossible (But I tend to disbelieve this will happen).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
