The motto of the United States is E Pluribus Unum, Latin for ‘Out of Many, One’. Matt Kirkland, who provided me this map, thinks the US has become too unwieldy, and proposes to go the other way: Ex Unum Pluribus *, ‘Out of One, Many’.
Mr Kirkland’s website “is a bit of a grassroots movement, dedicated to breaking the US into smaller, more functional nations”. It provides some extra information on each of the new, smaller American nations, “and a fresh map so that anyone can submit a new proposal.”
The proposed new states are:
1. Côte d’Atlantique (Maine): “When the New Nations are born, Cd’A plans to ally herself with Canada, eventually opting for voluntary annexation. Official language: French. Capital: L’Amherst.” (Pop.: 1,3 million)
2. New England (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and most of New York State): “New England expects to experience tense international relationships with its neighbors, New York, Jersey and Côte d’Atlantique.” (Pop.: 20 million)
3. New York (NYC and Long Island): “New Yorkers have neither the space nor the temperament for agriculture, and must import all foodstuffs.” (Pop.: 12,2 million)
4. Jersey: (Pennsylvania, Delaware, eastern Maryland, most of New Jersey): “Still smarting from losing Jersey City to the new nation of New York, Jerseyans plan to rebuild it – and call their capital New Jersey City.” (Pop.: 22,3 million)
5. The Confederate States of the Atlantic (most of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia): “The CSA is expected to adopt the Stars & Bars as a national flag at their first Confederation Conference.” (Pop.: 33,7 million)
6. The Magic Kingdom of Florida (Florida): “Somewhat astonishingly, the Kingdom plans to squeeze the entire executive branch of government inside Cinderella’s castle on the grounds of Walt Disney World.” (Pop.: 16,7 million)
7. West Kendiano (Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and the western part of Virginia): “While most citizens assume that their new name is an amalgamation of its components, West Kendiano actually refers to the now-extinct Kendiano Native Americans who originally occupied this territory.” (Pop.: 29,3 million)
8. Soggy Bottom (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana): “Soggy Bottom will lead the new nations among exporters of grits.” (Pop.: 11,8 million)
9. The Boundary Waters (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota): “Revolutionary sentiment in ‘The Mitten’ (i.e. southern Michigan), as its citizens prefer to call it, is growing. Only time will tell if the Boundary Waters can hold together as a nation.” (Pop.: 20,5 million)
10. The People’s Republic of the Plains (Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa): “The PRP expects to dominate the annual International American Football Association championship tournament.” (Pop.: 31,8 million)
11. El Republico de Tejas (Texas): “Tejanos originally fought the proposals to dissolve the US, arguing they were never really part of the Union anyway.” (Pop.: 20,5 million)
12. Dakota (North and South Dakota): “With their share of the spoils of the defunct federal government, Dakotans plan to build a shining example of a well-planned capital. Dakota City will host 85% of the national population.”
Another fun fact: “Dakotans have proposed a revolutionary new system for their currency. Paper denominations of the ‘dakot’ will be numbered according to the primes and coins – one hundred ‘iotas’ equal a ‘dakot’ – will follow the fibonacci sequence. Math skills are expected to skyrocket as a result.” (Pop.: 1,4 million)
13. Northwest Territories (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming): “Only in theory will Olympia’s governmental powers reach past the Sierra Nevada. Most of the eastern high plains will most likely be controlled (peacably) by independent militias.” (Pop.: 12,3 million)
14. Calivada (California and Nevada): “After the dissolution of the US, Calivada will hold title to the world’s second largest economy.” (Pop.: 37,2 million)
15. Four Corners (Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico): “Once construction is completed, the Parlia-Dome of the Four Corners Capitol building will sit exactly at the juncture of its component states. Members will be able to sit through an entire session of parliament without actually leaving their state’s territory.” (Pop.: 14,1 million)
16. Ha’awaska (Hawai’i and Alaska): “Ha’awaska employs a bicameral capital system, keeping governmental functions cordoned off in Honolulu and Anchorage).” (Pop.: 1,9 million)
* I’m not sure this is the right declension, but my Latin’s a bit rusty. Shouldn’t it be Ex Uno Plures?
Honolulu is on the wrong island and I’m from Alabama so thanks for being a jerk and more or less saying we contribute nothing but ‘grits’. Interesting idea even though this map is really flawed.
Comment by Abestar — July 7, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Check out Joel Garreau’s book “The Nine Nations of North America”. Wikipedia has good write-up.
Comment by the stapler — July 7, 2007 @ 1:19 am
[...] Ex Unum Pluribus: A Plan to Divide the United States Into Several Smaller Nations (Strange Maps) [...]
Pingback by Josh Tinley.com — July 7, 2007 @ 1:39 am
Whoever did this map spelled Cincinnati wrong. If it’s the capital of a new nation (and it would make a great capital city) couldn’t we at least spell it correctly?
Comment by Christopher — July 7, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Interesting concept and probably meant as a joke but there are less-than-funny flaws in it. It is insulting to the many regions, it also completely fails to account for how the cultural divides of USA actually play out. Also, “replubic” is a feminine noun in Spanish, so it should be “La Republica de Texas”, and Honolulu is on the wrong island.
Comment by Alex — July 7, 2007 @ 3:49 am
Ya. I think this works. Forget the Lower 48…I like this better!
lol
Comment by abu ameerah — July 7, 2007 @ 4:36 am
what the stapler in comment #2 said: that version is more logical/less fanciful than this one. This thing is just made up, where Garreau’s is based on the modern reality.
Comment by paulbeard — July 7, 2007 @ 4:45 am
You left Iowa out of The People’s Republic of the Plains!
Comment by 2sheds — July 7, 2007 @ 6:18 am
@abestar: you’re right! The map needs work. We should all make our own versions, and submit them. It’s only this spirit of cooperative dialogue that can make our sedition work. How would you divide it up?
Comment by ombudsman — July 7, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Something makes me think the designer of this map is from the West. New Yorkers do not consider themselves part of New England; nor would Pennsylvanians, Marylanders, or Delawareans have any truck with falling under the “New Jersey” label.
Since we’re after constructive suggestions: lump upstate New York and western Pennsylvania with West Kendiano (horrible name, that). Combine New York City, New Jersey, Philadelphia, DC, and environs and suburbs into “Megalopolis.”
Comment by Minivet — July 7, 2007 @ 11:23 am
[...] Item. I have always been fascinated by proposals to split up the U.S., ever since I read a copy of this book when I was younger. I’ve got my own thoughts on the subject, as you might expect, but Garreau’s analysis rang very true. [...]
Pingback by DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Ex Unum Pluribus: New American Nations — July 7, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
heh - they put Montpelier in New Hampshire…
and everyone knows that the capital of New England will always be Boston
Comment by Andy — July 7, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
New York is not New England! But as a compromise for taking it back, I’ll give you Connecticut.
Comment by corduroy13 — July 7, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Since I was asked I’m going to offer up my ideas on how to make this map abit less flawed. I’ll mostly talk about the south-east since thats where I’m from and others have already talked about other regions (mostly the north-east).
First off Soggy Bottom is an awful name, this area is much more likely to adopt a name that harkens back to the confederate past of the region as the states that compose it are generally considered the ‘Deep South’.
The Atlantic states are considered a bit culturally different and are unlikely to adopt a ‘CSA’ moniker. More than likely Georgia would be on its own and just rename itself Atlanta, the Carolinas might join but I’m unsure of the current feelings there. South Carolina might go with Georgia with a capital in Savanna but its unlikely in my view that Virginia would be a part of these more southern unions. I see them joining Maryland and Delaware in a Union of the Potomac maybe with West VA.
Why is Tennessee joining with Ohio and Indiana? Most likely they would join Soggy Bottom or join with Kentucky in a separate union or TN, KY, North AL, North GA, Western NC and W. Virginia would join into a state of Appalachia.
Is Arkansas really considered a Plains state these days? I really thought it had more in common with Louisiana and Mississippi.
West Florida as far as Tallahassee would probably be a part of Soggy Bottom as this area has more in common with southern Alabama.
The only other thing I feel comfortable comment on is that its unlikely Hawaii and Alaska would join. Alaska would probably join with Canada and Hawaii with either join with Cali or be a kingdom to itself.
More comments people! Lets get a better understanding of the feelings of each region!
Comment by Abestar — July 7, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Yes, it should be ‘uno’, as ‘ex’ takes the ablative case, not the accusitive ‘unum’.
Comment by Sam — July 7, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I love it! Nice creative idea. My suggestions:
First, “Jersey” is already taken (New Jersey is “New” for a reason). I love “Megalopolis” and would like to contribute Southwestern CT to that new nation. Upstate NY can join…Midsylvania (”Middle Woods”–suggested new name for West Kendiano).
AK and HI might be too different to make up one country. I suggest two nations: “Sewardia” and “Honeymoonland”.
Since when is Amherst in Maine? Also, Cote d’Atlantique needs a new (gramatically correct) name, and I think we should leave the honor to Canada.
Does the PRP have two capitals? Does the Magic Kingdom have a king? Is it Michael Eisner?
Comment by JM — July 7, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
“The Mitten” usually refers to the southern part of Michigan, not Wisconsin.
Comment by Wilson — July 7, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
@abestar:
You’re right: Honolulu is not on Hawai’i (not just the name of the state, but also of the Big Island) but on Oahu, the 2nd island from the West on this map).
@thestapler:
I’d heard of Garreau’s Nations, but hadn’t seen the elaborate Wikipedia entries. The accompanying map is nicer than the only other, smudgy one I’ve seen of the Nine Nations, but a bit sterile. Anybody have any other versions?
@Christopher:
Agreed. Although Cincinnati is easy to misspell. Maybe it should revert to its original name - Losantiville.
@Alex:
Correct. It should be ‘La Republica de Tejas’.
@2sheds:
My apologies - it shall be rectified forthwith!
@Andy:
Yes, Montpelier, capital of Vermont, seems to be misplaced in New Hampshire.
@Sam:
Thanks for the help with the Latin! And am I correct to think that in this case it should be ‘plures’ and not ‘pluribus’?
@JM:
Amherst (pop.: 230) is in Maine, but you (and the mapmaker) probably had another Amherst in mind, the one in New Hampshire (pop.: 10.000). A correct French name would be ‘Côte atlantique’.
@Wilson:
My mistake, ‘the Mitten’ does indeed refer to the lower peninsula of Michigan.
Comment by strangemaps — July 7, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Texas would be better separate anyways. And we wouldn’t drag you into crappy wars.
Comment by Nigel Watt — July 7, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Abestar, Christopher, Alex, Andy, Sam, jM, and Wilson, while the map’s geography, spellings, and Latin contain some mistakes, you should not blame Mr. Strangemaps. Your issues should be taken with the map’s creator, Mr. Kirkland. He should have contact info on the link Strangemaps nicely provided us with.
Comment by Darrel Jones — July 7, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Um, he does. I sent him my version of the map already. He’s even commented here. Did you not read his site? Lol….. Pompous ass…
@abestar: you’re right! The map needs work. We should all make our own versions, and submit them. It’s only this spirit of cooperative dialogue that can make our sedition work. How would you divide it up?
Comment by ombudsman — July 7, 2007 @
Comment by Abestar — July 7, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
As a resident of the Olympia area, I was pleased to see that Mr. Kirkland made a small nod to reality in his description of the “Northwest Territories”. People in eastern Washington state barely accept being under “our” rule. Wyoming? Not a chance. A better scheme would lump the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming together, and group Washington, Oregon and northern California as “Cascadia”. (Or in Ernest Callenbach’s book of the same name, “Ecotopia”.)
Comment by Geoduck — July 8, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Yep, the CSA shoud be where “Soggy Bottom” is…and besides, plans are already afoot for the Duchy of the Atlantic (Charleston-Savannah-Jacksonville).
Comment by TF — July 8, 2007 @ 2:29 am
Expanding on #15: there is no significant semantic difference in the two utterances
E pluribus unum
and
Ex unum pluribus
since the cases of the words is what decides the meaning.
Comment by michiexile — July 8, 2007 @ 6:49 am
“Only in theory will Olympia’s governmental powers reach past the Sierra Nevada.” Since when did the Sierra Nevada move from central California to the Northwest?
Comment by Peter — July 8, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
And the last, but indeed not least, flaw: How is this (awful) suggestion more “functional”? Is it the complete economical separation? The landlocking of half of these nations? The internal wars? The moving of capitals to bush towns? The decimation of DC?… I went to the site to look for the ironic / satirical clues, yet remained baffled.
Comment by Yuval — July 8, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Why does the People’s Republic of the Plains (and Ha’awaska for that matter) need 2 captisls and other states don’t?
Also, Chicago would be better off as a state on it’s own, as would the other 8 most populous cities.
Comment by ubermensch — July 8, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I don’t WANT to be in the People’s Republic of the Plains! I live in St. Louis, and I don’t WANT Branson for one of my capitals. Branson’s a den of hicks! Chicago is OK, but it’s too far away.
Ubermensch, I think the PRP would NEED two capitals so that those of us who wouldn’t go to Branson if our lives depended upon it won’t go screaming into the night, taking our money with us.
Comment by Kiwi — July 9, 2007 @ 2:05 am
I think this should just be considered a fun exercise for those of us interested maps and cultures. It really shouldn’t be taken seriously. We all like to gripe about being Americans sometimes but we work better together than apart, just like Europe.
Comment by Abestar — July 9, 2007 @ 5:13 am
Unfortunately, as most of the other comments show, people are morons. Which is exactly why we invented the government, so we wouldn’t have to care. We pay people ( through our taxes or whatnot ) so we don’t have to care about running the nation. But when it comes down to letting them do their job, we’re all over them for doing it wrong.
It’s kinda like police and everyone else trying to decide what kind of police force is “excessive”
So, with people being morons aside ( a fact I don’t think I’ll ever get over until people grow brains ) I think it’s time for the comment I first thought I was going to submit.
I like the idea, decentralizes alot of things, and if implemented correctly can centralize som of the things that’d be smart to centralize. ( road planning for one >_
Comment by ZLOK — July 9, 2007 @ 11:45 am
you know, I’ve always felt the Northeast should secede anyway.
Comment by kellysmack — July 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
[...] Ex Unum Pluribus: New American Nations [...]
Pingback by The Upward Way Press » Blog Archive » Ex Unum Pluribus — July 9, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I think a thin strip of northern New Hampshire & Vermont would be absorbed into Canada as well, because of the large Quebecois influence there. Plus, if Maine continued to use a new French name it could be renamed “Nouveau Nouveau-Brunswick” or “Nouveau-Brunswick Oest” as it’s pretty much a clone of the Canadian province.
Also, is Waco the capital of ERD Tejas because George Bush’s ranch is just outside the city?
Comment by Treblat — July 9, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
[...] 143 - Ex Unum Pluribus: New American Nations « strange maps Wijhijs (tags: maps usa) [...]
Pingback by links for 2007-07-09 — Michel Vuijlsteke's Weblog — July 9, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Being from Maine, I’d be glad to join Canada. As long as we can be on Atlantic Time
Comment by art — July 9, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Atlanta secedes from the Neo-CSA, files for independence. (seriously, nobody within the boundaries of I-285 gives a rat’s ass about the Confederacy.)
-hx
Comment by Hooper_X — July 10, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
In an amusing quirk, the mitten has already tried to secede from (roughly) the boundary waters. The original Michigan Territory included Wisconsin and part of Minnesota. These were separated (because they were too far away) when Michigan applied for statehood.
Ohio was blocking Michigan statehood though, because it wanted the Toledo strip. Ohio even wrote into its state Constitution that the strip was included, because they were sure that was the original intent, despite the actual wording of the Northwest Ordinance.
Michigan had already set up local governments in the area, but eventually agreed to cede the land (so Michigan could become a state), and the restoration of the Upper Peninsula was a face-saving reparation.
Of course, since politicians were involved, they managed to leave the boundaries still a bit unresolved, and things were ironed out again (with Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) in the 1970s.
Today, the mitten’s population is about half that of the entire “boundary waters” nation, and people in the western UP often feel as much connection to Wisconsin as they do to lower Michigan.
Comment by JimJJewett — July 10, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
@ Hooper
Good, the real Atlanta was burned down anyway.
Comment by Abestar — July 11, 2007 @ 12:41 am
It should be “E Unibus Pluram” (and check out David Foster Wallace’s essay of the same name).
Comment by K — July 11, 2007 @ 4:54 am
why did the cancer known as new jersey have to spread?
Comment by mind — July 11, 2007 @ 6:07 am
West Kennediano? Are you high? Now OSU will need passports every time they go the that state up north to kick ass!
Comment by Cappy — July 12, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Virginia’s an interesting case. It’s gonna hafta get the chop, like Solomon’s baby. The northern part (more liberal, tech heavy, DC metro) is going to have to be glued to whatever MD’s doing, and the southern part can revel in its rebel past, since you can’t really get NPR there.
Of course, MD might need to be split as well, with the eastern half teaming up with NoVa and sticking to whatever’s happening on the coast, while far western MD is gonna have to go with whatever the West Virginians are doing.
Follow I-81->77->85 south. The line that runs fifty miles east of it would make a great border. Chop around Danbury, CT, I-66, and Columbus, GA. The east is four!
(I will miss Pittsburgh, though.)
And may I second the motion for Boston to be proclaimed the (eternal, indivisible) capital of New England.
Comment by Bill — July 12, 2007 @ 4:32 am
Here is a similar take on the map of Canada, its author proposes dividing our glorious home and native land into five nations:
Comment by rek — July 13, 2007 @ 11:14 am
http://members.shaw.ca/jamesdahl/canada.html
Comment by rek — July 13, 2007 @ 11:14 am
North American Union of Divided States, woot!
Comment by Abestar — July 13, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
“Columbus” in the Confed States looks strangely to be where Columbia, the capital of South Carolina is…unless they meant something like Columbus, GA which would then be in the wrong spot
Comment by Bridge — July 16, 2007 @ 4:44 am
Being from North Carolina I think that they would rather align themselves with Virgina and points north instead of South Carolina and Georgia. There is no way they would want to called the Confederate States either. I also do not think Pennsylvania would want to be called Jersey.
Comment by JuicyJ — July 23, 2007 @ 3:11 am
Soggy bottom made me LOL!
I’ve often thought that New York should just be a different country altogether. We could trap them in there with a big wall, and never let them out, so they can keep thinking they’re so important.
I’m moving to Ha’awaska
Comment by jeremy — July 23, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
i didn’t read all of the entries, so somebody may have pointed this out already,but…
California would not join Nevada and Arizona. We would be our own kindgom. I’ve heard tell of plans to bomb the fault lines and simply float away from the continentals. We would definitely extend diplomatic relations to Hawaii and Alaska. then would come civil war, a split between Norcal and Socal.
Speaking of, Has anyone seen all the paraphernalia floating around? The two sides are already gearing up.
Comment by wallsconce — July 26, 2007 @ 1:40 am
cool….t
Comment by toni — July 30, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Sadly, more cutesy than clever. Also, shows interesting LACK of geographical knowledge. For example, in “Northwest Territories” there is reference to “Sierra Nevada” which are NOT found ANYWHERE in this region. (The mountain range that separates Western WA & OR from the rest of the region is the CASCADES.)
Plus anyone who considers ARKANSAS (let alone IL, MO or even IA) part of the “Plains” has obviously never studied a REAL map very carefully.
This type o’ thing has been done MUCH better elsewhere.
Comment by Sea Shanty Irish — July 31, 2007 @ 3:05 am
ROTFL!!!! I’m sitting here laughing my arse off, and I’m not sure why!! I love this one
Comment by Barth D. — August 3, 2007 @ 5:52 am
Like the divisions.
Suggest “West-By-God-Virginia” instead of “West Kendiano.”
I believe most of this region was part of the original colony of Virginia (and was home to many tribes).
Comment by GeorgeM — August 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Hello, M. Strangemaps.
Have you ever heard of a comic books trilogy called “Liberty”, written by Frank Miller and illustrated by Dave Gibbons?
The last is terrificly less famous than the former, but he has also worked with Alan Moore on the “Watchmen”, wich is (for me) the most significant piece of comic books art. Anyway, “Liberty” tells a story of a nuclear civil war divided the USofA in dystopic independant States, with a president commanding his nukes even after becoming a mad brain floating in a fishbowl…
And there’s off course a map showing the mess around the splitted states, such as a new-risen South, a Texas become a “Lone Star State” or a transsexual-feminist California called “Third Sex State”.
But I’m not sure of the names, I read it long ago and translated in french, so I’d dream about viewing that map again thanks to this site, plus that’s one the strangest maps I’ve ever seen and I’m sure that it would find here a right place here.
Comment by Tertius — September 25, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Scrap Branson as a capital, call TX “Brainless Bushie Land,” and it might be a bit better.
Comment by A Person — November 23, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Living in Minneapolis, I have always thought of Minnesota and Wisconsin as one unit. I am not so sure about Michigan.
Comment by Mike Thompson — December 16, 2007 @ 12:01 am
Like others who have already commented I think that Northwest Territories is unlikely. Oregon, Washington, & NorCal would be more appropriate together instead…maybe they could even blend with Hawaii to create…well, in my idealist fantasy, Utopia!…lol
Comment by Trace — May 2, 2008 @ 7:11 am