I figure the four Atlantic provinces would instantly become the twenty most left-wing states in the U.S.
Hawaii and Alaska both have independence movements. One of those sparks could theoretically catch fire.
New Hampshire and Vermont occasionally make noise, but this is less likely than the two above.
Mexico could go tits up (or it could turn itself around and become a major 21st century world player), but it’s not going to stay tits up long enough for us to get any of their territory (which they already think we want, and are rabidly opposed to the notion.)
If NYC split off it wouldn’t be alone. It would probably take Long Island with it and take its name, or, far awesomer, call itself New New York :).
I’d like to see a complete redesign of the US flag, not just one to reflect the inclusion of new states or territories. Something in a royal blue with ring of 13 white stars (in honor of the original “13 colonies Betsy Ross flag”) around a bust of George Washington, “1776” in Roman Numerals on a little scroll at the bottom below his neck. Too garish/arrogrant/regal for America? I just think our American flag is not very pleasing to the eye: asymmetrical, colors clash. I’ve never liked the look of it.
A ring of stars will be taken by some as proof positive the U.S. has submitted itself to European control, in light of that arrangement being prominent on the E.U. flag. Then it’ll be all militias and conspiracy theories and junk.
The loss of portions of one or more border states at the southern border is possible.
I think NY state could conceivably split into two states, Upstate NY vs. the NYC area. Upstate NY has more in common with New England than it does with the NY-NJ-PA area.
Bah. Colors clash?
Red, white and blue is the most successful color scheme in modern history. Don’t fuck with it.
How would it change the map? :dubious:
The new State of Columbia would swell with importance?
This is what I was thinking. A north/south split, with South California being more Republican/conservative and North California being more Democratic/liberal.
Except due to war, has any state every split like that? I can’t think of any that have split after becoming states except due to the Civil War.
-XT
Capitals in Los Angles and San Francisco.
It’ll never happen, as both parties won’t be able to decide who gets stuck with Bakersfield.
Massachusetts split into present-day Massachusetts and Maine in 1820.
Didn’t know that…thanks! I’ll have to look that up, now I’m curious as to why it happened. 
-XT
There are occasionally small adjustments to state borders, not big enough to be noticed on a national map. When a boundary river changes course, the official boundary generally follows the old course of the river. If both of the states involved and congress agree, as they occasionally do, the border can be adjusted to follow the new course. There was a case like this a couple of decades ago when a few hundred acres was swapped between North Dakota and Minnesota several years after the Red River changed course.
Not long ago there was a pretty serious movement afoot for Wendover, Utah, to be annexed to Nevada. Both states seemed poised to give their blessing, but the process was put on the back burner by local politicians.
I believe the political divide in California is more urban/rural, or inland/coastal, than it is north/south. Just off the top of my head, Butte County in northern CA leans conservative, while LA County in the south is pretty liberal.
The strongest Republican county in CA is Modoc County, which is in the northernmost part of the state.
People from the coastal areas of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island headed north into the unsettled regions of New England. There were disputes as to which state these settlements belonged in. As RNATB pointed out, Maine was formed out of territory that Massachusetts had claimed. Vermont was formed out of territory that had been claimed by New Hampshire and New York.
Most of the original states had much larger borders than they do now. Of course their western borders were mostly theoretical. But the original charters of Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia ran for “sea-to-sea”. The Treaty of Paris set the national borders of the United States at the Mississippi River so that legally cut off these states’ to the Pacific. But many of them did feel they had a legitimate claim to land on the western side of the Appalachians.
Virgina was the most active in its ownership. A substantial number of people actually settled in its western half and Virginia set up a county level government there. But in 1792 this area was admitted as the seperate state of Kentucky.
But beyond these examples, the states that are now Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin are all formed out of area that were once part of other states.
Trivia note: If the states had kept their original borders, Chicago would be in Connecticut.
New Hampshire is why.
For more details on all this, as well as the Massachusetts/Maine split, I highly recommend How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein. Each chapter is about a state (or DC) and how over time it acquired it’s current shape.
My only qualm with the book is that is is arranged alphabetically by state, when I would have prefered either geographic ordering or chronological.