I get the impression from reading around that during the Colonial period NH only narrowly avoided absorption by Massachusetts. Indeed from 1699 to 1741 the Royal Governor of MA was responsible for NH as well. Yet NH retained a separate Legislature all through this time.
WI it hadn't? After all having Maine as part of MA, but NH not, does produce a rather peculiar state of affairs. So WI at some point the British government secedes too amalgamate them?
Immediately the effect is probably slight. Afaik NH played only a peripheral role in the ARW and the Constitutional Convention, so no change likely there. But after that the butterflies might multiply.
First question I can see relates to Vermont. Does it still become a separate state, or does it stay part of NY or maybe join MA (or be divided between them)?
That in turn raises a point about the 1796 election. Other things being equal, Adams loses two electors, so still squeaks through by one vote. But if VT is also butterflied, he loses four, and Jefferson wins.
In 1801 (if the Jefferson-Burr tie is not butterflied away) things are sorted much quicker. If Jefferson gets the same HoR delegations as OTL, he has eight states - but 8 out of 15 (or maybe 14) instead of 16. So he's in on the first ballot. Maybe a delayed 12A, and perhaps less estrangement of Burr from the DRs?
But for me the big one is 1820. A Massachusetts which includes NH is less likely to agree to the separation of Maine, since TTL this area isn't physically detached from the rest of the State, so there's no Free State available to balance MO. Do we get a situation where Slave States are in the majority through the 1850s? Or is it possible that the area comprising IN and IL might be split into three states instead of two, in an attempt to maintain more of a balance? Or is MO just kept waiting for statehood a heck of a long time? Any thoughts?
WI it hadn't? After all having Maine as part of MA, but NH not, does produce a rather peculiar state of affairs. So WI at some point the British government secedes too amalgamate them?
Immediately the effect is probably slight. Afaik NH played only a peripheral role in the ARW and the Constitutional Convention, so no change likely there. But after that the butterflies might multiply.
First question I can see relates to Vermont. Does it still become a separate state, or does it stay part of NY or maybe join MA (or be divided between them)?
That in turn raises a point about the 1796 election. Other things being equal, Adams loses two electors, so still squeaks through by one vote. But if VT is also butterflied, he loses four, and Jefferson wins.
In 1801 (if the Jefferson-Burr tie is not butterflied away) things are sorted much quicker. If Jefferson gets the same HoR delegations as OTL, he has eight states - but 8 out of 15 (or maybe 14) instead of 16. So he's in on the first ballot. Maybe a delayed 12A, and perhaps less estrangement of Burr from the DRs?
But for me the big one is 1820. A Massachusetts which includes NH is less likely to agree to the separation of Maine, since TTL this area isn't physically detached from the rest of the State, so there's no Free State available to balance MO. Do we get a situation where Slave States are in the majority through the 1850s? Or is it possible that the area comprising IN and IL might be split into three states instead of two, in an attempt to maintain more of a balance? Or is MO just kept waiting for statehood a heck of a long time? Any thoughts?