Redrawing Oregon Border (Portland: appointed, for sale, how much)

[Jane M]

Thoughts??

[timfountain]

No.

[NW4me]

.

Where? Why?

.

[Pavlov's Dog]

If we could move power back to the states from the federal level I would be very supportive of changing all of the states borders and having fewer states but changing the borders within the current system is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. What problems would it solve?

[texasdiver]

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

State borders have always been political. For example, North and South Dakota were admitted as separate states when their population didn't justify it (and still doesn't) and it was one Dakota Territory at the time. This was done so that four Republican Senators could be added to the Senate, not two. And this actually resulted in accelerated stealing of Indian lands as much of South Dakota was actually part of the Sioux Indian reservation and the state needed to steal the land to make South Dakota into a viable state.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory

Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889, and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers.

There had been previous attempts to open up the territory, but these had foundered because the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) required that 75% of Sioux adult males on the reservation had to agree to any treaty change. Most recently, a commission headed by Richard Henry Pratt in 1888 had completely failed to get the necessary signatures in the face of opposition from Sioux leaders and even government worker Elaine Goodale, later Superintendent of Indian Education for the Dakotas. The government believed that the Dawes Act (1887), which attempted to move the Indians from hunting to farming, in theory, meant that they needed less land (but in reality was an economic disaster for them) and that at least half was available for sale. Congress approved an offer of $1.25 per acre for reservation land (a figure they had previously rejected as outrageously high) and $25,000 to induce the Indians to sign.

A new commission was appointed in April 1889 that included veteran Indian fighter general George Crook. Crook pulled out all the stops to get the Indians to sign, using a number of underhand tactics. He threatened them that if they did not sign, the land would be taken anyway and they would get nothing. This would not have been seen as an idle threat; the treaty had been ignored in the past when the Black Hills were taken from the Sioux. Crook ignored leaders like Sitting Bull and Red Cloud who opposed the sale and kept them out of the negotiations, preferring instead to deal with moderate leaders like American Horse. American Horse, however, claimed immediately afterwards that he had been tricked into signing. Crook made many personal promises (such as on reservation rations) which he had no authority to make, or ability to keep. He claimed afterwards that he had only agreed to report the concerns back to Washington. Crook lied about how many signatures he already had, giving the impression that the signature he was currently asking for would make no difference. He said that those who did not sign would not get a share of the money for the land. Crook even allowed white men who had married Sioux to sign, a dubious action given that the blood quantum laws only counted full-blood Indians as members of the tribe. By August 6, 1889, Crook had the requisite number of signatures, half the reservation land was sold, and the remainder divided among six smaller reservations.

At this point, the only real reason to move state borders would be to consolidate partisanship on one side of the line or the other. In other words, combine western OR and WA into a single bright blue state, and eastern OR and WA into a single bright red state.

That would be a bad move in my mind and would result in more political fracturing in this country and more division not less. And would make political compromise less common at both the state and national level. I think it is a good thing that diverse populations live within each state. Politics is the art of persuasion and coalition-building.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

It would be fine with me to dip the Washington Oregon border a few miles to the south. Just enough to move Portland into Washington.

[Jane M]

I posted in response to this:

https://katu.com/news/politics/suppo...ort-for-motion

I personally think it's stupid and if people hate Oregon so much (more specifically, Portland) then they should move.

I was just curious about people's thoughts. No agenda.

[NW Crow]

I think it is far more viable than calls for a new state. Potentially politicians in a smaller Oregon and a bigger Idaho might both agree to it. If there is strong enough public support. Still a long shot. If it got strong support, similar minded folk in Washington might join the effort. Maybe even northern Nevada.

The folks shifted into Idaho would have to accept paying sales taxes. Some would be further from state capitol.

It would not move many electoral votes.

Would Idaho want more to pay for more schools, roads, prisons, etc.? I dunno. Is it a wash with new tax revenue, a net gain or loss? Would it help economic development? Probably not. Almost all rural / small cities & towns. Would be a way to dilute Boise's power in state goverment though.

Thanks for mentioning. I'll want to see the results.

To achieve goal, will need very savvy, connected, committed leadership. Probably for 5-10 years or longer.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

It would be fine with me to dip the Washington Oregon border a few miles to the south. Just enough to move Portland into Washington.

The state would go bankrupt in a year. The Portland metro economy supports the rest of the state.

[NW Crow]

Not only would Boise's relative power be reduced but so would eastern and western Idaho's and Twin Falls'. They would have to offset than power loss with some ego / prestige gain as a modestly more populated / much bigger state. Area gain could make them move from 14th largest in area to perhaps 5th. How much would state leaders groove on that immediately or over rest of century?

Would Oregon leaders be ready to become a valley state? The Connecticut or Vermont of the Northwest?