If the U.S. Collapses, What Would Be The Future of Your State (and City)

[wwmiv]

The borders of states, metropolitan areas, and other governing entities regularly come up in thread discussions here at SSP.

From another thread, and I hope pepper steak won’t mind the quote here. I agree with their general point that California’s population wouldn’t change much, but would its security?

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes. Let’s talk about what California’s borders are, shall we?

—————

For most of human history, major rivers have been a huge navigation barrier for most people and certainly present somewhat of an obstacle for the administration of a government’s authority. Generally, you want a major natural feature that acts as a protective barrier to the entry of militaries, peoples, and goods. Mountains, rivers, swamps, deltas, forests, deserts, etc. Countries which feature these as their predominant borders tend to be much more easily defendable.

As it stands, California’s borders don’t matter much except for the authority that the military might of the Union in which it finds itself give it (so that it can administrate that land). So, of course those borders can be highly arbitrary straight lines on a map—they don’t have to think about the questions of defense an independent nation would have forefront in their minds.

If the United States collapses, California would likely become a country of its own, but its borders would not be the borders it has today. It’d probably expand, but to where will it expand and what features will become the easily defendable borders? And what client states does California erect past those features? I suspect that the Colorado River would remain the boundary, they’d consolidate with Vegas, Carson City, and Reno, as well as much of the basin and range comprising rural Nevada, leave the Mormons alone as a political choice, conquer Baja California, set up Tijuana as a client city-state and administer and settle the remainder, and then utilize Arizona (which would likely ally with California and seize the desert and coastline east of the Colorado to establish a port city) as a buffer state between it and both Mexico and Texas.

They’d also likely have periodic minor skirmishes with whatever state(s) emerge to the north and west, including Utah, that would result in border adjustments until a defense equilibrium exists (I.E. both sides feel as if they have the territory they want and that their current boundary with their neighbor can be easily defended vis-a-vis that neighbor). It wouldn’t be a straight line anymore, but would likely follow the curves and contours of the natural landscape.

The United States today has the benefit of a northern neighbor who largely speaks the same language, shares much of the same ethic and culture, and an easily defendable southern border along the most major southern river in the North American continent and a largely straight line through the center of North Americas largest desert. And yet we still have trouble controlling immigration. Our states don’t have to ask questions of defense and territorial integrity. If they did, their borders would not be the same and many states would be screwed. Minnesota, for one, has zero defense capability.

—————

Lesson: it doesn’t really matter much what California’s boundaries are today except from an administrative standpoint.

So, what would happen to your state and city should the United States collapse? This is a favorite current right-wing pastime to oddly glorify the collapse of the United States if they can’t “save” it. Most Americans outside of a select few states and cities (of those even exist) would be fundamentally worse than if the United States continues, even with its flaws. Where would your borders end up being, what military conflicts would be likely to ensure defense and resources, would you be winning or losing these battles? What allies, clients, confederations, consolidations, cleavages, conquests, etc.? What would the local politics be like, if it is even democratic at all? For non-Americans, how would this affect your country’s economy, politics, and alliances? For Canadians and Mexicans specifically, would ensuing instability cause your own collapse or disintegration? Would Quebec achieve independence, finally?

Thanks in advance for playing.

[SIGSEGV]

Illinois would probably capture portions of Wiconsin to ensure security. I'm thinking a line from Green Bay to Portage, then following the Wisconsin river to the Mississippi. Likewise, probably take over portions of Indiana, basically drawing a line from Michigan City down to the Tippecanoe River, follow the Tippecanoe and then following the Wabash.

That would give Illinois mostly water borders, with plenty of food, water and population.

One wrinkle would be what to do about St. Louis looming across the river...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Illinois would probably capture portions of Wiconsin to ensure security. I'm thinking a line from Green Bay to Portage, then following the Wiconsin river to the Missippi. Likewise, probably take over portions of Indiana, basically drawing a line from Michigan City down to the Tippecanoe River, follow the Tippecanoe and then following the Wabash.

That would give Illinois mostly water borders, with plenty of food, water and population.

One wrinkle would be what to do about St. Louis looming across the river...

Wouldn’t it be more likely that Illinois merges peaceably with Wisconsin, with the capital being in Madison? That would leave a fairly powerful neighbor within striking distance of Minnesota’s capital region, which would have to build a home-grown defense industry and rely on foreign states to support any defense until they do. In all likelihood, this merged state would lose its southern-most and northern-most stretches to Missouri and Minnesota, respectively. On the other hand, I do agree with you that much or all of Michigan’s UP and the portion of northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan encompassing as far as is necessary to reasonably defend South Bend would be eagerly in the sights of its leaders.

[Chef]

In the medium turn Wisconsin would likely end up being partitioned between Illinois and Minnesota with the line going through the hills of the Driftless Area and the north woods. Greater Minnesota would likely get the northwest quarter, including Eau Claire while most ended up in greater Illinois with the border along the Mississippi being somewhere around La Crosse. In the long run much of the Midwest could end up like the Eurasian steppe with conquerors ranging from one end to the other. The only major geographic boundaries would be the Appalachian Mountains, Great Lakes, north woods and Driftless Area. Minnesota could use the Driftless to shield itself from the east but would be vulnerable from the south. Its best approach would be to form some sort of confederacy with the Dakotas and Iowa to try to create a powerful enough state between the Black Hills and the Driftless that it could protect itself from the south and east. We would also want to continue overland trade links to the Pacific via Montana, Idaho and the Pacific Northwest and would do whatever diplomacy was necessary for that.

The name of the game in most of the Midwest is protecting yourself from Illinois. Over time Illinois would probably absorb most of the Midwest due to Chicago's economic power and the lack of land barriers in the region. Minnesota probably has the best chance to resist this due to the fact that the land between the two is hilly and wooded and also due to the dynamism of the local economy and a culture with high social capital and equity (people tend to buy into and believe in the system).

Does the same process happen in Canada? Alliance with the Canadian prairies would probably be worth exploring. Minnesota and Manitoba have always had economic ties because of the navigation head of the Mississippi in St Paul gave their products a southern route to world markets. We would see the prairies in general as a useful counterbalance to the power of Illinois and they would see us as buffer between them and a potential hegemon. A strong Ontario would also be useful to us if it maintained open navigation on the Great Lakes. If Canada doesn't collapse Minnesota's best option would be to try to join it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Chef

In the medium turn Wisconsin would likely end up being partitioned between Illinois and Minnesota with the line going through the hills of the Driftless Area and the north woods. Greater Minnesota would likely get the northwest quarter, including Eau Claire while most ended up in greater Illinois with the border along the Mississippi being somewhere around La Crosse. In the long run much of the Midwest could end up like the Eurasian steppe with conquerors ranging from one end to the other. The only major geographic boundaries would be the Appalachian Mountains, Great Lakes, north woods and Driftless Area. Minnesota could use the Driftless to shield itself from the east but would be vulnerable from the south. Its best approach would be to form some sort of confederacy with the Dakotas and Iowa to try to create a powerful enough state between the Black Hills and the Driftless that it could protect itself from the south and east. We would also want to continue overland trade links to the Pacific via Montana, Idaho and the Pacific Northwest and would do whatever diplomacy was necessary for that.

The name of the game in most of the Midwest is protecting yourself from Illinois. Over time Illinois would probably absorb most of the Midwest due to Chicago's economic power and the lack of land barriers in the region. Minnesota probably has the best chance to resist this due to the fact that the land between the two is hilly and wooded and also due to the dynamism of the local economy and a culture with high social capital and equity (people tend to buy into and believe in the system).
.

Minnesota has one of the fewest active duty resident military (around 700), and the largest base therein employs about 200 people. Combine this with Minnesota’s fairly strong gun control, local culture that emphasizes personal safety without gun ownership, has eviscerated their local policing apparatus, and has one of the least prepared state guards, I think Minnesota is ripe to become a client state: too large to administrate yourself, and serves a useful purpose as a buffer between Canada and whatever interior countries are established (Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana are my guesses), so they leave it alone.

Iowa is only slightly better, as most of the same applies—private gun ownership is much more the norm there, gun control is much laxer, and policing institutions are more prepared. Iowa doesn’t have a truly major urban population center and would be strategically vulnerable to Missouri. The cultural similarities between the two are akin to Illinois and Wisconsin, and a merger would not be surprising.

[Acajack]

In terms of Canada, I don't see a hypothetical collapse of the US having much impact on Canada's structure, unless some "floating" states or regions of the US try to form new entities with neighbouring parts of Canada.

I do think that Canada is also going to be vulnerable to fractious pressures going forward, but the likelihood that they'd come to a head around the same time as hypothetical ones in the US (thereby allowing for the creation of cross-border entities) seems pretty unlikely to me.

[Kngkyle]

If the current federal government in Washington DC collapsed it would likely be replaced by a new federal government based in Washington DC... just with a different constitution and reset of ~250 years of accumulated federal bureaucracy. Once again leaving most policies up to the individual states with the exception of military and monetary policy.

If that didn't happen... or didn't happen right away... I could see like-minded states banding together to create regional governments. Chicago could become the capital of the Great Lake States. Indiana would probably be the problem child since it's quite different politically than MN, WI, MI, and IL but cuts off IL from MI... and they'd probably go to war to maintain their Great Lake access. Ohio wouldn't join either but since it's fairly separate from the others it doesn't matter so much. Who knows what Iowa would decide.

I think the existing concept of our state governments would persist through any federal collapse with the borders remaining largely intact. Neighboring states typically have good working relations with one another.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Indiana would probably be the problem child since it's quite different politically than MN, WI, MI, and IL but cuts off IL from MI...

you can always get to michigan from chicago by heading up through wisconsin, then east across the UP, and then across the mackinac bridge to "regular michigan".

it's only 400 miles longer than going through NW indiana

[jmecklenborg]

Why are people even talking about this? I'd trust that this was a fun thought experiment if it were 1995 or 2005, but it's been obvious since 2015~ that foreign actors have introduced and encouraged civil war talk on Twitter, Reddit, and other internet venues.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Why are people even talking about this? I'd trust that this was a fun thought experiment if it were 1995 or 2005, but it's been obvious since 2015~ that foreign actors have introduced and encouraged civil war talk on Twitter, Reddit, and other internet venues.

well, this was all the rage on the internet back in 2005, so....... the more things change.....

americans have always hated other americans, because like most people, americans are stupid.



source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-Jesusland.png

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, this was all the rage back in 2005, so.......


source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-Jesusland.png

How did MD, DE, PA, and NJ end up in Jesusland? lol. Canadians would never go for that, though.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you can always get to michigan from chicago by heading up through wisconsin, then east across the UP, and then across the mackinac bridge to "regular michigan".

it's only 400 miles longer than going through NW indiana

Or we could just build a bridge from South Shore to New Buffalo. This would actually be great even today since the drive through Indiana to get to Michigan is the fucking worst.

[jd3189]

I think states in their respective regions would begin to unify under smaller Unions.

The Northeast may unify with NYC being the capital or retaining its position as the major city while Philly takes the title of seat of government. New England may want to retain independence with its capital being still in Boston.

The South may want to resurrect the old Confederacy, but can easily be split into two with Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia dominating in their own Southeast Union, and Texas taking the western half.

The Midwest could be unified under Chicago or be divided into a Great Lakes Republic to the East and a Great Plains Republic to the West.

As for the West, California would dominate the entire Southwest with Nevada, Arizona, and Utah being under the banner, while the Pacific Northwest would extend more inland to Idaho and British Columbia.

Speaking of BC, Canada's provinces are already large enough to be their own regions but they may still consider joining with the US states adjacent to them. Ontario could join with the Great Lakes states to form a nation surrounding several inland seas. Quebec may still want to retain independence so it makes just join with some of the Atlantic provinces, although some of the latter may be taken up by New England.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Speaking of BC, Canada's provinces are already large enough to be their own regions but they may still consider joining with the US states adjacent to them. Ontario could join with the Great Lakes states to form a nation surrounding several inland seas. Quebec may still want to retain independence so it makes just join with some of the Atlantic provinces, although some of the latter may be taken up by New England.

Well, of course Quebec at present doesn't have any independence to "retain", but if it were to get a taste of that, it probably wouldn't enter into geopolitical entities or arrangements with any other provinces or states. Though it would most definitely seek out fairly open trade relationships with them.

You're on the right track with Canada's Atlantic provinces. In the event of some type of geopolitical upheaval, there is a fairly good chance of them cozying up to New England.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I think the existing concept of our state governments would persist through any federal collapse with the borders remaining largely intact. Neighboring states typically have good working relations with one another.

Yeah, we already have a good idea of how this would look because of the Civil War. Some states might have breakaway regions (e.g. West Virginia), but state governments would likely step up quickly to establish sovereignty over their current territories. Some states with small populations and/or poor natural resources might band together to create a larger territory.

[MolsonExport]

This is a favorite current right-wing pastime to oddly glorify the collapse of the United States if they can’t “save” it.

They'd rather do with (much) less and exist in a (much) shittier environment so long as other groups fall farther down the strata, and therefore, they improve their status in this much shittier dystopian alternative world. That is really what it is all about for many of those gun nut incels.

[ardecila]

I don't think the political leanings of a given city are fixed. Lots of people live where they live because they have can lead a certain lifestyle, but maintain easy connections to their birthplace somewhere else. Take away the easy connections, and people go back to their birthplace so they can remain close to family. In this "total collapse" scenario there will likely be huge internal migrations.

I don't think it will ever come to that, though. This isn't 1860 - a partition of the country is vastly more complicated now than back then. Families are split up across states and scattered from one coast to the other. Families usually span the political divide as well. Blue voters live in cities surrounded by red voters, there is (basically) no blue countryside. Many blue voters in cities in fact come from the red hinterland. Etc etc. No way to simply draw lines on a map to separate one group from another.

Here is the county-level map from the 2020 presidential election. How do you partition this?


source: Brilliant Maps

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think the political leanings of a given city are fixed. Lots of people live where they live because they have can lead a certain lifestyle, but maintain easy connections to their birthplace somewhere else. Take away the easy connections, and people go back to their birthplace so they can remain close to family. In this "total collapse" scenario there will likely be huge internal migrations.

I don't think it will ever come to that, though. This isn't 1860 - a partition of the country is vastly more complicated now than back then. Families are split up across states and scattered from one coast to the other. Families usually span the political divide as well. Blue voters live in cities surrounded by red voters, there is (basically) no blue countryside. Many blue voters in cities in fact come from the red hinterland. Etc etc. No way to simply draw lines on a map to separate one group from another.

Here is the county-level map from the 2020 presidential election. How do you partition this?


source: Brilliant Maps

I actually don't think it will be particularly had to partition. Each state has a law enforcement apparatus that is more effective than anything the federal government has outside of the military*. It would be fairly straightforward for state governments to establish authority over their territories.

*For example, on January 6, Congressional leaders had to ask Maryland and Virginia to send protection to the capital because of lack of resources at the disposal of Congress itself.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I actually don't think it will be particularly had to partition. Each state has a law enforcement apparatus that is more effective than anything the federal government has outside of the military*. It would be fairly straightforward for state governments to establish authority over their territories.

i don't know about that.

if the political upheaval is significant enough to dissolve the federal union, i can also see it splintering individual highly-divided states as well.

there's no way in hell that downstate IL voluntarily stays married to chicagoland in such a scenario.

and every single last man, woman, child, and even most pets, are "locked and loaded" down there, so the corn farmers will call their own shot.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't know about that.

if the political upheaval is significant to dissolve the federal union, i can also see it splintering individual highly-divided states as well.

there's no way in hell downstate IL stays married to chicagoland in such a scenario.

and every single last man, woman, child, and even most pets are "locked and loaded" down there, so the corn farmers will call their own shot.

They might all be armed but I'm certain there are more government owned firearms in Chicagoland than in the rest of the state combined. Now, Illinois might decide they don't want to establish authority over downstate, but I doubt they'd have trouble doing so if they needed to do so.

Illinois is more lopsided in population distribution than Michigan, and I have no doubt that Michigan would move quickly to establish authority over the state territory. Michigan also has a deeper history with rightwing nutjob militias than Illinois, and I still don't think it would be much of an issue.