As other people are saying, Texas would likely be broken up. The regions of Texas (in most cases) share more in common with neighboring states than with other parts of Texas. El Paso and San Antonio (maybe Austin?) would likely go towards the Southwest states. North Texas would go towards Oklahoma/Nebraska/Kansas. East Texas would join up with the Southern states.
I think the idea implicit in this map is that it's very much based in the material conditions following a collapse rather than ideology, which I love. Like, the different parts of Texas might have different cultures but if the federal government and national economy collapse, people aren't going to care as much about making sure their new country is ideologically coherent so much as being able to secure resources and security. And the largest, most powerful states now will be set up the best to provide that. Big fish eats little fish. That's why in this scenario I don't think far north California tries to break away, for example. Because being a part of "California" would probably offer folks up there most security as well as maintaining an economy that would most closely match the level of the former US more than maybe anywhere. That's incentive enough for the reactionaries up there to hold their nose and take orders from Sacramento.
As other people are saying, Texas would likely be broken up. The regions of Texas (in most cases) share more in common with neighboring states than with other parts of Texas. El Paso and San Antonio (maybe Austin?) would likely go towards the Southwest states. North Texas would go towards Oklahoma/Nebraska/Kansas. East Texas would join up with the Southern states.
I think the idea implicit in this map is that it's very much based in the material conditions following a collapse rather than ideology, which I love. Like, the different parts of Texas might have different cultures but if the federal government and national economy collapse, people aren't going to care as much about making sure their new country is ideologically coherent so much as being able to secure resources and security. And the largest, most powerful states now will be set up the best to provide that. Big fish eats little fish. That's why in this scenario I don't think far north California tries to break away, for example. Because being a part of "California" would probably offer folks up there most security as well as maintaining an economy that would most closely match the level of the former US more than maybe anywhere. That's incentive enough for the reactionaries up there to hold their nose and take orders from Sacramento.
deleted by creator