|
When France first hit the New World, it quickly sized up what was needed militarily to control this Continent, if you control the Mississippi and Great lakes water System you control the Continent. The French then settled Quebec in 1608 and over a Century later founded New Orleans. The French called this area "New France" and it was an easy boat ride to almost anyplace within New France, the biggest problem was that they was no Direct connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system. While there was NO direct connection, portage between the two was relatively easy, often less then 20 miles on flat lands (This was do to the Glaciers from the last Ice Age, the Glaciers started to melt and do to the run off from the melt every stream, river or Creek on the American Side of the Lakes more then 20 miles from the Great Lakes flow south, the Great Lakes flow into each other and out the St Lawrence, but this only started AFTER the Glaciers had been melting for hundreds of not thousands of years, thus it is easy to get from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River system, making both one transportation system that has existed for the last 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age).
The reason the French lost New France to the English was that England used the New World as a dumping ground for its dissenters, who were then kept in line and loyal to England do to fear that the French will tale over the East Coast without English Support. The French sent over only the most loyal French they could find, ran New France like a Military camp (Every Frenchmen in New France was expected to serve France even at the cost of development) and was run by one of the most Corrupt Colonial administration every created. Between these three problems, low population do to making sure only the most loyal could go (This was a problem for many other people in France wanted these same people to stay in France just in case of Revolution in France) and hopeless corruption (Something like $9 dollars of every $10 allocated to developer and defend New France was stolen before the money ever left France). On top of this the Native Americans, while trusting the French more then the English, preferred English Goods, for two reason, first the English Goods were better quality and second they were cheaper (Both tied in with the Corruption in the French Colonial Office). Worse the English were willing to import Germans in the Middle Colonies, when Englishmen did NOT want to go (William Penn started this trend by publishing pamphlets telling Germans they could have free lands in Pennsylvania if they settle they, many did, so many that by the Time of the 1754 French and Indian War Germans Clearly outnumbered English in Pennsylvania, and probably New Jersey and Maryland).
Thus by 1754 the English outnumbered the French in North America almost 10-1, and the numbers were increasing for the English Colonies. The American Indians has never recovered from the Small Pox Epidemics of the 1500s and 1600s and while a factor in the war between England and France for North America, relatively minor factor (Especially given the fact that the most Powerful Indian Tribe in what is today the US and Canada, the Iroquois were loyal to the English NOT the French). The English then did its killing move on the French, Attacking present day Pittsburgh to grab control of the Ohio River, taking Ticonderoga to free New England from any French Attack, and then Taking Quebec and Montreal. At that point France gave up North America (Only officially, French would stay the standard language of the Native Americas for inter-tribal use till English finally replaced it only in the 1830s, the main reason for this is the French still control the trade routes in what had been New France even while the English Took Canada and the Spanish was given New Orleans). Even this division of the Mississippi River System would only last 40 years, by 1803 the US had obtains its own independence from Britain (as many Frenchmen had predicted once France was out of Canada, for only the fear of France kept the American Colonies loyal to Britain) AND Napoleon had sold New Orleans to the US.
By the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the Great Lakes became the Border between Canada and the US, but British forces stayed south of the Great lakes till the 1790s (and supplies Native Americans supplies through the War of 1812, so to keep the trade of those Tribes coming through Quebec instead of the US proper). With the Settlement of the Mid-west after the war of 1812, and the completion of the Erie Canal connecting the Great Lakes with the Hudson River and New York City, even Canada started to become economically part of the US. By the 1850 this was clearly the case for Canada started to use the Dollar instead of the British pound do to growth of Trade between the US and Canada. This trade would increase after the American Civil War and continues to this day, showing that New France still lives even it is only on the Economic level.
My point is this area, the Mississippi River System, the parallel river/Canal system to Mobile Alabama, Including the Red River, the Missouri, the Plate, The Upper Mississippi, the Ohio river in addition to the Great Lakes are one integrated river highway, and as an integrated River Highway will tend to unite a people into one nation. It may be made up of more than one State (Canada and the US for example at the present time) but states are only legal institutions, the term Nation implies a sense of unity. The United States is a Modern State and a Nation. Canada is clearly an Independent State, but is it a separate nation? I can make the argument it is not and has not been since at least 1850, if not before. Nations are NOT only legally independent of each other (as are Canada and the US) but economically and socially independent of each other (Which Canada and the US are NOT).
I bring this up for if the US breaks up, the concept of Nation will survive any break up of the Independent State now known as the US (I can NOT say the same thing of Canada, but then I have already said Canada is part of the Nation of the US, but not the legal State of the US). Such breakup of nations tend to see the fringes set themselves up as independent States, but once the breakup is over, the tendency to unity of the nation reemerges. You can see this to a limited extend in Russia. Belarus and the Ukraine broke off from Russia at the time of the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Both nations are still trying to determine they relationship with Russia. Both Belarus and the Ukraine are Independent States, but being on the Eurasian Steeps are in many ways economically and socially tied in with Moscow. I do not want to get into European Politics to much, but the Rivers in Eurasia tend to unite people, like they do in North America, in Eurasia the Rivers tend to flow to the sea independent of each other (unlike the Mississippi river and Great Lakes system which ends up flowing into one river at each end). Even with the fact the rivers are less uniting in Eurasia then in North America, the trend is still they to see. In North America with only two exits from what was New France, unity will return to that area sooner or later.
You can see it in the History of China, the key to China is its two main rivers, those unite China into one Country. When China breaks up (and it has in the past) someone sooner or later uses those two rivers to unite the Country again. Then China expands beyond those rivers to roughly were it has always stopped. Sometimes to the Great Wall, sometimes further north, China tries to hold on to Hanoi every so often in its History, but tends to retreat for it is to far from the main rivers to really matter to the people and leaders of China.
I go into the above before I discuss any breakup on the US. While what had been New France may break up, it will never stay divided. Sooner or later it will be united, either from a force from within what had been New France, or by a force from without. The Last two times New France broke up, the French using Quebec as a base united it, then the British using the American East Coast and Nova Scotia took it over, then the US, using its population took over most of New France after the Revolution (and took over Canada economically by the 1850s). While this is the historical record, we have to understand how low was the population of the Native Americans in New France throughout the above periods. No one sees such low population for New France anytime in the Future, so what unites New France could as while come from within New France as from without.
Now let me describe the other geographical areas of North America. Second in Size to the New France is the Mexican Valley. It is huge, most of Central Mexico and can support a huge population. It is Second to New France in both regards. Occasionally New France and the Mexican Valley have come into Conflict, but as a general rule both are to far from each other to be a threat to each other. The Conflicts is when one moves into other regions that threaten the other. The classic Example of this was the Historical problems of Spain and France when Spain controlled Mexico and sent troops to what is now east Texas, France viewed that as a direct threat to New Orleans and was a point of Conflict even while both nations were allied against the British in the 1700s. This problem arouse again after the War of 1812 as Mexico gained its Independence from Spain and started to assert its right to what is now Texas. By that time New Orleans had become American Property and any hostile forces in what is now Texas is a threat to New Orleans. Thus Texas had to become part of the US and the US did so by 1848. While most Texas rivers do NOT flow into the Mississippi River, the Gulf coast acts like an extension of that River, thus East Texas had economically always been part of New France even when it was technically under Spanish Rule (Through Spain and later Mexico Forbade such trade).
While East Texas and the Red River Valley is part of New France, the Rio Grand Valley is it own nation. What make the Rio Grand its own nation? Because the most important thing in the Rio Grand Valley is the Waters of that River. Since 1848 that River has been the Border between the Legal States of Mexico and the US, but has always been its own nation. What happens in its drainage area is more important to the people of the Rio Grand Valley then anything that happens in Washington or Mexico City. The Colorado River can be viewed as the same, what happens on the river is more important then anything else, how much snow falls in Colorado and drains into the Colorado River is more important to the Mexican citizens at the point the River flows into the Bay of Cortes then what happens elsewhere in Mexico. This is typical of Desert nations, like Egypt and why the Colorado and Rio Grand River Systems are two nations, caught between the two big powers of North America, New France and the Mexican Valley. Prior to 1836 both legally were in the State of Mexico, since 1848, both have been divided between the States of Mexico and the US. Such borders areas have always existed and shift from one nation to another, while often maintaining their won nationhood to a degree (Netherlands, Belgium Luxembourg, Switzerland and the German Speaking, but French Provinces of Alsace-Lorraine are examples of this, caught between the Nations of France and Germany, often playing one against the other, more worried about the Rhine River then what is going on elsewhere in Germany or France).
The next nation, and often tied in with the Colorado River, is San Diego. It is the best port south of San Francisco. Economically it is part of Los Angeles (or Los Angles is part of it) but both are low water areas dependent on the Colorado River for part of their Water, the rest from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This separates them from the Central Valley of California and San Francisco, which is much wetter and colder and is itself a separate "Nation" but like Los Angles/San Diego, the Colorado River System and the Rio Grand River System so tied in with New France they are part of present day nation of the US and Canada. Except for the trade, over the mountains, these areas would all be marginal, to far from New France to be a threat to New France but if independent of New France would be a patch on their present size (The Colorado and Rio Grand river is an exception to this rule). If the US ever breaks up, California will break into two country, one around San Diego and other around San Francisco. Independent of each other and both hoping New France gets united so they can re-attach and grow as New Frances connection with Asia. San Francisco I do not ever see becoming part of Mexico, it was marginal Mexican and Spanish in the 1700s (Sutter of Sutter Mills Frame, purchased his mill from the Russians NOT the Mexicans when he settled in California). On the other hand the Rio Grand, Colorado River and San Diego/Los Angles nations could very while become part of Mexico, more do to the fact all three of these "Nations" extend into present day Mexico as while and the US today.
This brings me to Puget Sound and the Columbia/Snake River Valley. The Exact southern border of this "Nation" is about the present Oregon/California Border, but it is arbitrary more then real. The issue where do the local look to for trade? Seattle and Puget Sound or San Francisco and San Fransisco Bay? This nation includes British Columbia and probably Alaska's panhandle. Puget Sound and the Columbia and Snake Rivers are the key to this Nation. That the Columbia River does NOT flow into the Puget Sound has been the area biggest handicap, forcing people to haul items by land to Seattle where elsewhere in North America the major Port and Harbor are at the end of the local Major River.
Alaska, Yukon and the Canada's Northwest Territories can be called "Tribal lands" for all practical purposes. Agricultural in non extended in these areas so not only is the urban population low so is the Rural Population. The Yukon and MacKenzie Rivers (along with Hudson Bay) are the main transportation system (planes are used extensively but hard to ship heavy items by plane). Best ruled at a local and Area level. Each tribal area having control over its "homeland" while the overall Area Government make sure national laws are followed. This area will fall to whoever controls the areas south of it. Siberia is very similar. Could a force retreat into this area? yes, but will quickly wear out its welcome by consuming whatever food is available. In any breakup will try to stay loyal to whoever is to the south, but will switch sides as whoever controls the area to its south. Thus will NOT stay independent for any length of time, it will want to join in whoever rules to the south. This is true of Greenland as while, with the exception if Denmark actually trues to hold onto Greenland if anyone who controls New France Decided they wanted Greenland.
Now New France ends sometime when it hits the Rocky Mountains. What I said about Alaska, Yukon and the Canada's Northwest Territories also goes for the Utah and the Great basin. The Great Basin is NOT in any other are, but like the polar regions low population prevents it from being any thing more then a "Tribal area". What happens they will have no affect on the rest of the Continent UNLESS the rest of the Continent wants it be important. Thus the Great basin falls into the same category as the polar regions, sooner or later it will comes to terms with whoever controls "New France" on whatever terms "New France" grants it.
This brings us to the East Coast. Quebec is part of New France so NOT part of the East Coast. Newfoundland has a little more population then Greenland, but like Greenland will tend to join whoever controls the area to its south (again do to the fact it is so far north with minimal agricultural, through more agricultural then areas further North). New Brunswick, Prince Edwards Island and Nova Scotia is in similar situation as New Found land, but being closer to New England, more farming is done and closer to coming under the control of any independent nation of New England. New York City could be its own Nation, but would be more powerful if it unites with Boston and Philadelphia. The problem with that is all three are natural ports, with New York City and Philadelphia drawing from the Hudson River and Delaware River for trade. Philadelphia also will be competing with Baltimore for trade of the Susquehanna River, Which flows into Chesapeake Bay, while in trade to Philadelphia from that river has to go overland to Philadelphia. Thus the Three Northern Large Cities will tend to do what they did in Colonial Days, divide up the east coast and try to get as much as the trade from New France that they can over the Mountains. Thus New jersey will be split, Southern New Jersey, Delaware and Eastern Pa becoming part of Philadelphia. Northern New Jersey, New York State SOUTH of Albany, Connecticut and Long Island to New York City, Nova Scotia, Brunswick, Price Edwards Islands rejoining New England and Boston. Up State New York playing the old game of the Iroquois, seeing which of its four options pays it the best, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia or Quebec (and New France).
Baltimore and the rest of the Chesapeake Bay will tend to unite, Norfolk to get supplies from Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland via Baltimore, Baltimore having access to the Atlantic for its trade from Central Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.
South Carolina is one of the Few states in the US that geographically makes sense, it is centered around the best port south of the Chesapeake Bay, Charleston. North Carolina will tend to join the Chesapeake Bay nation (as it did doing Colonial times) while Georgia will join with Charleston as the best port in that part of the South (Savanna has always been #2 to Charleston). Florida will tend to go Independent, more do to the fact it is to far away from Mobile to be part of New France and to far From Charleston to be part of Greater South Carolina.
I went through the above to give people an idea of what are the "Nations" of North America. The problem is when you have a huge center, like what had been called New France, it tends to absorb the minor nations around it. Thus as soon as New France becomes Economically united again, all of the above nations will again fall under its spell and become part of what ever the new Country decides to call itself. The only exceptions will be the Mexican Valley, which is to far away, and maybe the Rio Grade River, Colorado River and San Diego Nations. An outside chance for San Francisco and the Great Basin. Every other area of North America is either to close to "New France' NOT to be absorbed by "New France" or to low in population and to far from other population centers not to be absorb by "New France". Thus long term the US will reform upon any break up.
Unlike Russia, where the borders between the various sub-states actually made geographic sense, most US states borders were draw by some bureaucrat who knew little or nothing about what he was doing except giving title to land to someone. Since the US Government had complete control over any waterways, rivers and lakes were used as borders, even through Rivers and lakes unite people not separate them. Many state borders are the result of some compromise over a border dispute, that just split the difference between the two claims, do to the fact people living on both sides of the border were citizens of the same legal state, the US. Thus in any breakup states will break up at the same time as the Federal Government. California will divide in half, as will Pennsylvania and to a limited degree New York State. Some areas will merge, Western Pa, West Virginia will join in any version of "New France" while before Eastern Pennsylvania and Virginia will ever think of doing so. Colorado may divide three ways, into the Rio Grand, Colorado and plate river system (The Plate being part of the "New France"). Texas will split two ways, Red River and East Texas to New Orleans and "New France" while the Rio Grand Valley may merge with the Mexican side of that River into a separate nation, taking New Mexico with it. Arizona, Nevada may join with the Mexican States on both sides of the Gulf of Cortes and may take San Diego with them (or San Diego may go on its own with Baja California as while as Southern California). I do not know, all I am pointing out is the Geographical tendency on North America, if a complete breakup occurred, it will tend to follow the above do more to geography then any other single factor. Social factors will also come into play, but geography is the trump card is such split up and the tend in the Great lakes and Mississippi River System is to unite not to break up.
I should also comment, do to the same tendency mentioned above, any movement to dissolve will face massive opposition, more do to people losing more then they are gaining by the dissolution. Thus I doubt the US will ever completely dissolve, but the above is how it would break up if it ever did.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
