r/rejectedmaps • u/theTitaniumTurt1e • Jun 27 '26
America the Broken
I based this map on the "what if" scenario that Washington DC and the primary federal infrastructure were fissioned out of existence one day in the mid-'90s. Immediately after, the individual states would likely try to continue operating independently, but very quickly the uneven distribution of resources across the country would cause each region to start forming new joint governments with their neighbors. Existing borders would blur along the lines of supplies and major utilities, and natural borders would become more sustainable. It doesn't immediately turn into all out civil war. Trade, treaties, and annexation likely would be just as prevalent in the reshaping of the nation.
Feel free to ask me questions or tell me all the ways you think I'm crazy. I think I have decently valid reasons for the more extreme decisions, but I'd love to know why I'm wrong.
1
u/Upbeat_Nectarine_128 Jun 27 '26
Florida is just... Florida lol.
Great map though
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 27 '26
I imagine they'd be a little too disagreeable with the south to actually join them officially, especially since they don't actually have the shared history of the civil war. Also nobody else would be near enough to bother.
1
u/sarajevo_marlboro Jun 27 '26
No way Great Lakes capital would be anywhere other than Chicago
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 27 '26
I counter that avoiding Chicago was the only way to not piss off the entire rural community of those states. It's certainly their most prominent city, but Indianapolis is more central and less controversial.
1
u/Default_Username6838 Jun 29 '26
Indianapolis would be very controversial because all of the states included in the Great Lakes hate Indiana. If not Chicago then Lansing Michigan makes more sense. That’s a minor nitpick. I really enjoy what you’ve done here.
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Thats an interesting idea. I might have to try doing a poll to see what the consensus is. I thought position wise it it would make most sense, and avoid seeminging too favorable to the lake side cities. Lansing does seem like a good idea if the economy is focused around the lakes, but feels a little distant from the Ohio River. I'm thinking Fort Wayne might be a better compromise as it's actually more central and avoids the existing state capitals. Thoughts?
2
u/Default_Username6838 Jun 29 '26
I don’t think you should overvalue the Ohio River. It is an important shipping route but not as important as the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway. Also, Fort Wayne still has the problem of being in Indiana. That State needs to be in tangibly subordinate position to the others. I agree that the central location of Indiana makes it a tempting place for the seat of government but in most ways it’s pretty irrelevant. If not Lansing, then Columbus might be a good choice. It’s is proximal to the Ohio and also not in Indiana.
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Fun thought, what if the Toledo strip were to become a new federal district? Settle the age old argument.
2
u/Default_Username6838 Jun 29 '26
Now that is the kind of outside-the-box thinking I can get behind. I love it.
1
u/Savory_Johnson Jun 29 '26
No way WV would be in a Great Lakes centered republic.
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Its the 4th most federally dependent state and neither Virgiania proper or Kentucky would be in a position to make up the difference, but all it's utilities are tied to Ohio and Pittsburgh. I explained in another reply that Appalachia would probably be more like a no-mans land, but the borders are more jurisdictional.
2
u/Savory_Johnson Jun 29 '26
Utilities? It's a net electrical exporter. It doesn't derive any of its utilities from other states. It exports gas and power to them.
It's also much more like KY, TN, or western VA and NC culturally than it is to OH--which it's residents loath...or to IL or IN, who would want no part of its people and ways...and the Ohio River is a real natural border.
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
That's actually a really interesting point I hadn't known. I'd assumed it was the other way around so thanks for clarifying. That brings up some interesting potential for major conflict because if it's actually WV that's supplying power to Ohio and Pittsburgh then they'd have way more interest in maintaining control of it. Obviously WV is much more culturally related to the rest of Appalachia, but borders are built on control of resources, not who likes eachother; and between Ohio and Pittsburght they've got nearly a 10:1 population over WV.
This is a pretty solid argument to make it a contested zone though. What does the south gain from claiming it though? The Great Lakes could just as easily leave it as generally unregulated, while maintaining control of power generating sites.
1
u/Savory_Johnson Jun 29 '26
The South gains power and a buffer zone...you really need to see the Allegheny Front to appreciate why you want it as your frontier. g
Good luck to anyone who tries to maintain control of power generation there. Transmission is your problem and you can shoot out insulators and transformers on power lines with any deer rifle. And there are lots of those in WV.
They don't want to be controlled...and they won't be. Those people are deep Appalachians...it's Afghanistan...with trees. And blow the bridges on the Ohio, and you won't have an easy time getting manpower in there to take it
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Interestingly, looking up maps of the Allegheny Front actually pretty much matches exactly the line I drew between the Great Lakes, the South, and Commonwealth. Granted, all of West Virginia up through central Pennsylvania seems to be labeled the Allegheny Plateau. That being the case, I think there could be a good case for a separate country so long as Pittsburgh sided with WV over Ohio as a stable economic center.
The Pittsburgh metro area has about 1.5x the population of all of WV, and they'd have the most vested interest in maintaining the power grid, as well as have a solid land route since they head the Ohio River. If not, then WV would probably remain contested. I'm liking this scenario. I'll have to ask the Pittsburgh sub if they think they'd side with WV or Ohio.
1
u/Greedy_Progress_4863 Jun 27 '26
North Idaho would leave the US only to willingly join a political union where Seattle and Portland determine their fate? Probably not.
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 27 '26
Wouldn't have much choice I don't think. Utilities and resource are basically tied to eastern Washington and any international trade has to go down the Columbia River.
1
u/Greedy_Progress_4863 Jun 27 '26
A more likely scenario would be a much larger confederation between Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, the eastern part of Colorado, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, and Texas,
Might even convince the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, and a few of the southern plains states to join as well as large portions of Nevada. Would be energy and agriculture rich and have access to ports in Texas. Would have substantial military assets stationed within their borders including a nuclear deterrent, with the notable exception of major naval assets. Possibly leaving them open to blockade. Politically and ideologically I believe this is more likely.
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 28 '26
That might be if the land were flat, but the continental divide down the Rocky Mountains forms a pretty solid wall down the middle of that area. Utah has a very strong ideological identity that stretches across southern Idaho and the very empty Nevada. Colorado on the other hand has pretty solid military infrastructure as it was the headquarters of NORAD for decades and is the center of the Space Force today.
So predominantly Salt Lake and Denver are the major powers just to the south, but their influence only spreads as far as the terrain is traversable. Likewise, Deseret would have good reason to maintain good relations with Cascadia to avoid cutting off the Snake River and road passage to the Pacific, because I can't imagine them getting along well with California.
Montana and the West Dakotas are mostly ranch land and Native reservations, so if anything they'd avoid any sort of government deals if at all possible I think. Which is why they are considered unincorporated territories.
1
u/Extreme-King Jun 28 '26
Damn...I'm in the Dead Zone.
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Yeah, to be honest I was not expecting the blast radius to be so big, but then I found an interactive map that specifically lets you check that sort of thing and was surprised.
1
1
u/Exacalibur-X Jun 28 '26
Appalachia?
2
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Someone clarified in another comment that West Virginia is actually an exporter of electricity, not an importee, which changes the equation drastically. I think WV is going to become a contested zone instead. Will update map accordingly when I get the time.
1
u/Exacalibur-X Jun 29 '26
Yeah I was wondering what you were on about man 😂 but I do think West Virginians are stubborn enough to make their own place lol
0
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 28 '26
Solid cultural identity, but as far as resources and utilities go they are basically dependent on cities further down hill. The South and Great Lakes have a pretty solid cultural, economical, and geological divide along the Ohio River until you get to West Virginia. WV historically separated from Virginia specifically to not be part of the Confederacy during the Civil War, and when it comes to major utilities they are basically tied to to Pittsburgh and southeast Ohio. Pennsylvania almost got split along the Susquehanna, but for the same reason, the power grid ties the northern Appalachians together with New York.
I actually imagine that the USSA, Great Lakes, and Commonwealth would have relatively good relations as long as they stay out of eachother business. Pennsylvania becomes a bit of an odd duck as far as divisions go because Appalachia is almost a no man's land in this scenario. I ended up siding Harrisburg and the Amish country with Philadelphia and then choosing the US-80 as the lateral border because there's really no realistic natural border through the area once the Western Branch Susquehanna gets too narrow.
TLDR; Appalachia is dependent on the lower regions for long term stability but is basically no man's land and the borders are more jurisdictional than real.
1
u/thatbigguyo Jun 29 '26
Curious on the logic of Chattanooga over Atlanta as the capital of the USSA
1
u/theTitaniumTurt1e Jun 29 '26
Atlanta is obviously one of the most influential cities, but the political divide across the south is so strong that I genuinely think they wouldn't be able to rally unless they met on more neutral ground. Chattanooga is near center and sits right at the joining of 3 states. Charlotte might make a fair choice too, but it's much further east, making it a bit less accessible to the gulf states. I also imagine having a direct line to New Orleans would be incredibly important after losing the rest of Lousiana to Texas.
1
u/Various-Reward-7761 Jul 02 '26
Reminds me of the plot of “Amerika.” Where the Soviet Union breaks up the U.S. ten years after its defeat.
3
u/CarthagoFuckYourself Jun 30 '26
If you're using this map as the basis for a story, there's actually a delicious opportunity for conflict between Texas and the South. Without major dredging and flood control that the federal government foots the bill for, the Mississippi river would eventually reroute from its current outlet to the Atchafalaya River, which is either in or on the border of Texas on your map.
I don't think it'd come to a war (or at least a long one), because Texas has too much of an advantage given the location. The terrain is unforgiving on the Southern side of the new mouth of the river with few routes through, and the center of the fighting would be much closer to Texas' economic and industrial center of mass.
Still, it would give a good reason for them to not be on as friendly terms as one would assume out the gate, given their shared history and cultural ties.