Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can take the I-5 (Oregon-Bakersfield) as the dividing line and in the South SR 58 (Bakersfield-Barstow) plus I-15 or I-40 (Barstow-Nevada or Arizona).
Actually, Virginia, S. Car., N. Car. and Ga. all used to reach the Mississippi River at one time.
If anything those big big states in the west should be divided up.
That was also during the Colonial period, before the ratification of the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Historically, Massachusetts was quite willing to allow Maine to be split off from its territory in order to maintain the Free State/Slave State parity in the US Senate that would have been disturbed in favor of the slave states upon the admission of Missouri as a slave state. It's hard to envision a scenario in which a state today would be willing to split itself into two new states. Why would the legislature of CA want to give up territory, population and tax revenue? It's also hard to envision a state legislature (TN for example) voting to dissolve itself and merge into another state.
[quote=silverhead;40894311]north and south Dakota=dakota
north and south Carolina=carolina
Virginia and west Virginia=Virginia
Would merging these states not make them bigger/better?.Never seen the point of having north this south that.Were these states ever one state?.[/quote]
Only Virginia and West Virginia were one state in the past. During the Civil War, the western counties of Virginia formed a Union-sypmathizing government that voted to seceed from the remainder of Virginia. The US Federal government recognized that competing government as the legitimate government of the state of Virginia, and therefore allowed for the formation of the new state of West Virginia comprised of the counties participating in that government, thereby fulfilling (at least technically) the requirement that no new state can be formed from the territory of an existing one without the consent of the existing state's legislature.
North and South Carolina (I believe) were once part of the same colony, but that split occurred before the Revolutionary war, and thus they were never part of the same state. There once was a Dakota territory, consisting of North Dakota, South Dakota, and some other land. However, the Dakotas were never part of a single state, only a single US territory. They were split upon application for statehood primarily for political reasons IIRC.
This has to be the douchiest thing I have ever read on here. It reminds me why I don't venture into the general US threads too much.
1) Not all Southern states are monolithicaly weak
2) These are including some states on the East Coast that are original colonies. They already have significant populations, economies, and unique histories that go back deeper than California's.
3) There are plenty of other states in the U.S. that are ever smaller and are way over-represented in the Senate as it is.
4) Georgia and South Carolina are original colonies. They are older than California and have completely different historical foundations from each other. They have more of a right to maintain these important historical ties to the foundation of our country in the 1600s and early 1700s.
4) Lastly I just want to give Louisiana a bit of special attention. It is the only state in the union that has a legal framework based on the Napoleonic Code and not British civil law. It is the only state to have French as one of its official languages. It is named after a French King. It has its own unique sub-populations, creoles. I think even someone from California can see where this is going. Why should a place so unique with a deeper history be forced to merge with another state not built with a similar framework?
5) These changes would make this new southern state pretty much be tied for the most populous state in the union, along with Texas. For what purpose should be encourage the creation of another huge state? ... especially if your intent is to break up California into smaller states, so there is more local control from smaller populations?
and all this why.... just to dream of splitting apart California, but make sure the flag looks the same!?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
