The Next American Civil War

This is actually something that’s been getting a lot of traction lately. And all that’s probably because of a book by one Stephen Marche called, fittingly, The Next Civil War. I haven’t read it yet, but I understand it has a map of what the US will look like after it’s all over.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find that map on the Interwebs. I did, though, come up with something similar myself a couple of years ago. Before sharing that, though, let me share a few of the maps that I did find, all of which seemed pretty poorly informed.


Slate

Well, Slate’s usually pretty reliable, but I have couple of questions here:

• What are super red states like Idaho and Utah doing teaming up with the Left Coast?
• Similarly, are Kentucky and West Virginia really going to get together with New England?
• What, exactly, do Alaska and Hawaii have in common?

That said, I do like how it groups the South & the heart of the country.  They’re both pretty reliably red.


Quora

Hmm.  Well, this one seems to be a combo of geography and history.  Many, many questions here:

• Is the Midlands really a donut?
• Are Louisiana and Quebec really the same country?
• How does Appalachia include Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas?
• Do Michiganders and Minnesotans really think of themselves as Yankees?
• And why isn’t Yankeedom contiguous?
• Could the Left Coast be any skinnier?
• What’s the likelihood of Canada and Mexico splitting up as well?

I’m not sure what I like on this one.


Medium

Along those same lines, here’s something that the poster calls “America Balkanized.” I admit it could happen. Just not sure if it would happen to this degree, or in this particular way. For example:

• Breaking up the South into 6 different sections just doesn’t make that much sense. It’s a pretty cohesive group of states.
• Same thing with Wisconsin and Michigan. Are they put together just because of the Great Lakes?
• Ditto with Texas and Louisiana. Is it just an oil thing?

In addition, the names of the different countries seem to point to non-political, non-cultural, and non-historical underpinnings – Anasazi, Headwaters, Huron, Oglala … 

Given all that, kudos for separating out Alaska and Hawaii. I also like the focus on the West Coast and the Northeast. Those do seem to be pretty distinct entities, especially relative to the rest of the country.


Reddit

Now, this one seems to have gone in just the opposite direction – too few new countries. And that only begs questions like:

• Would New England and the Deep South be likely partners?
• How about Massachusetts and West Virginia?
• How about California and Idaho?

I really like the idea of a rump state here. I also like that the way it's dealt with the territories. My guess, though, is that they might go off on their own – well, at the very, least Puerto Rico.


Moi

So, how about mine?  Well, here you go:

What I like about this one:

• Meaningful, political divisions (esp. when it comes to separating the red from the blue)
• Large blocks of cohesive areas
• No crazy borders
• No splitting states 

As you can see, I also put in likely capitals, as well as some suggestions for flags. I’m even thinking I could provide them with some likely heads of state as well:

• New England – Elizabeth Warren
• Southern States of America – Donald Trump
• USA – Mike Pence
• Pacifica – Kamala Harris

I’m not exactly up on Alaskan and Hawaiian politics, so maybe we could just go with the governors there.

The only part that really bothered me here was the capital of one country, Washington DC, bumping right up against the border of another (i.e., northern Virginia). Combine that with the notoriously blue counties around DC, and you might want to either restore the original boundaries of DC:

Or just pick multiple counties that could act as a barrier. Interestingly, those counties are already identified by the state itself, through the Virginia Association of Counties (the red ones, oddly enough):