One of the other devs asked about the description of the "Independent States of America" in the following passage. They asked if allowing for a southern succession was offensive or inappropriate. How does this read to others?
...
2077 - The American realignment
Following the third contested election in a row, the new governor of Florida declared that the state would no longer send taxes to DC, and began restricting the flow of goods from its coastal and space ports until its preferred candidate was seated as president. DC mobilized the military and national guard, and the governor of Florida demanded the backing of neighboring states. Internal conflicts within the military ranks began to rise as states began taking sides. Alabama’s governor immediately took the side of Florida and other states began forming alliances. Texas and Oklahoma declared joint neutrality. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia allied in rejection of Flordabama, despite recognizing many of the same grievances and demanded a peaceful solution. Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska formed a block in support of the US, as did New England. Mississippi and Louisiana were the most conflicted until an attack on US-loyal soldiers at Camp Powell began a civil war, and Louisiana and Mississippi joined the Texan alliance. The result was a transfer of power from the federal government to four regional state collectives:
Pacifica, made up of the west-coast: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.
Oyate Ni’na Tan’ka Makobdaye ka Heitanka (ONTMH), made up of Colorado, The Dakotas, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Alberta, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Missouri, and Saskatchewan.
The Independent States of America, made up of most of the coastal south: Florida, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.
The United States of America: the remaining states of the north east and central continent remained within the United States, although many formed regional state compacts and much of the authority of the federal government was shifted to these states and their state collectives.
I think as long as it's not glorifying it (which, I mean, obviously you guys aren't), I don't really see how it could be offensive. I looked over the abbreviated history after reading your post here, and it's clearly speculative fiction that's trying to illustrate how humanity is going to transition away from our current mess, and it's not unrealistic to anticipate that transition is going to be a little messy in the ways you're describing. Maybe I'm biased since I'm personally a huge fan of alternate history fiction, but yeah, personally I don't think offensive is something I would ever use to describe exploring an imperfect but improving future.
Inappropriate though, I guess that depends more on the vibe you're going for. If you're wanting this to be a pure escape where people don't have to consider how this world got to their solarpunk utopia, I guess mentioning an ISA would be inappropriate. But if you're going for a slightly more gritty vibe, where the world the characters live in was not an easy one to get to, then I think it gives nice flavor to the lore.
But that's just my 2 cents.
I think that the complicated, messy aspects that you mention describe my general approach to this kind of writing, so I think it's okay, then.
In my reading of it, it's not in any way a justification for the original succession attempt. The intent was to describe how the US -- the world's premier empire and hegemon -- transitioned into the status of a former world power (as every other world power eventually has), and this version of a breakup seemed believable. I think it works, but I'll keep looking at comments and see if there are any suggestions for how it might be amended.