Well i'm for once thankful about the cable here in Australia. History Channel is as good as ever with little to no repeats, within 6 months or so anyway, and no Sci-Fi leakage.

Might be cause we have only had the history channel for 10 years or so to though.....

And a list of changes.

* Erased state borders in First People's Nation, California, and Jefferson.

* Gave New York to Allied States.

* Took British Columbia, Alberta, and part of Saskatewan from FPN, and created Atlantic Provinces from them.

* Annexed Central American countries into Mexico.

* Carved up Utah between FPN, Jefferson and CNA.

* Reduced "bulges" from CNA into the Michigan Socialist Republic. 

How is it now? Any feedback is welcome; this could be an interesting discussion.

A union of Southwestern states that, in this timeline, seceded after the stock market crashed in 1929. (I'm starting to draw up a backstory now; more information on Jefferson and the other nations should pop up soon.)

And here's part of my draft. It covers what lead to Jeffeson's formation, and will eventually include the map's other nations.

 1915: Woodrow Wilson joins the Allied Powers in WW1 at the urging of war-hungry members of his cabinet after the sinking of the Lusitania. He sends troops to help his new European allies. Many of the new arrivals are unprepared for the new kind of war that is being fought in Europe, and are soon sent to Ypres, where they are killed en masse. On the home front, views on the war are highly polarized, particularly in cities with large immigrant populations. Riots flare up periodically, and strikes are common.

As WW1 thunders on, Wilson passes the Sedition and Espionage Acts, and creates several committees to manage resources for the war. Although most states accept this, these actions energize several radicals across the country, giving rise to Regionalist movements in the South.

1916: The slaughter in Europe and back-and-forth nature of the war, and arrests/imprisonments due to the Espionage and Sedition Acts begin to slowly polarize the nation. Regionalists gain influence in the South, while Socialists establish themselves in Northern cities, particularly in Michigan.

1917: The tide of war begins to turn towards the Allies with victories against the Ottomans and in Europe, but the collapse of Russia worries many, and convinces many moderates to oppose the war. Regionalists capitalize on the discovery of the “Zimmerman Note” and gain great influence in the Southwest, while Socialist movements in Michigan gain members from disaffected factory workers. Dedicated Regionalists are emerging in influential positions in parts of the South and much of the Southwest.

1918: WW1 ends with Allied victory, but dissent simmers, especially in the Southwest and Michigan. Socialist movement begins to spread to "steel belt”, while Regionalist movements form in Canada.

1919-1928: The enactment of Prohibition is controversial and raises dissent in “wet” states, but the prosperity of the “Roaring Twenties" severely saps strength from Socialists and Southern Regionalists, but Southwestern movement remains strong, with leading members of the movement in government positions.

1929: Stock market collapses, inducing nation-wide panic. By this time drenched with Regionalist dogma, Texas secedes, soon followed by many Southwestern states. They eventually unite as Jefferson, associating their states’-rights politics with the famed Revolutionary War hero.

Although a nuclear war would probobly balkanize (if not obliterate) North America, I think any new nations that sprung up would have highly centralized, even tyrannical, governments, ala Jericho.

But I could ne wrong, democracies have been born out of war before. Like I said, feel free to discuss it.

OK. Strictly speaking, a democracy is not incompatible with a highly centralized or even tyrannical government. One of the major reasons the U.S. founders worked so hard on our Constitution was that they had to find a compromise between their desire to limit government power and their need to follow through on the populist rhetoric that had been essential to winning the Revolution. Perhaps their greatest concern was tyranny of the majority. The roots of their worry are far, far older than any modern state--Aristotle got the ball rolling with the Politics.

That stuff aside, I've often wondered how Jefferson would have responded to the Civil War. I'm nowhere near as well-read as I'd like to be, but I do have more history books under my belt than the average bear. Jefferson did believe that the Tree of Liberty would periodically need the blood of patriots, but I'm pretty sure he would have come down in favor of maintaining the union. He bought the Louisiana Territory for us, after all, and that says something about ambition for a grand-scale nation. So your south-western Jefferson folks are doing what many regimes have done throughout history--claiming the mantle of a great but dead leader who might not support them if he were alive.

if your that b ored go out side just a hint theres more than enough maps out there and  yours is missing tons of things so ill leave it at that

I don't think this guy got the gist of the thread.

too funny!

forget all the faux historicana and use it to play 'where's weezie?'

Goof-up: The Atlantic Provinces are on the Pacific coast.