The U.S. hasn't seen the creation of any new states post-modern roadways. Yet, every so often, the thoughts of creating new states makes the news. Long Island constantly threatens to break away from New York. The state of Jefferson (northern California/Southwestern Oregon) has been in talks since the 1940's. As per their annexation treaty, Texas, if it ever chooses, has the right to separate into 5 states.
From a DOT perspective, what would have to happen if these successions ever occured? In other words, hypothetically, what would the transition from old state to new state look like?
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 03, 2010, 12:09:39 PM
From a DOT perspective, what would have to happen if these successions ever occured? In other words, hypothetically, would would the transition from old state to new state look like?
I presume that DOTs would be re-formed just as the rest of the bureaucracies would have to be. I would think that any plans from the old DOT would transfer to the new DOT, and that the successor DOTs can do with those plans as they wish.
Don't know how well this works in the General Highway Talk forum. It might be better under the Fictional one IMHO.
Quote from: Brandon on February 03, 2010, 12:43:28 PM
Don't know how well this works in the General Highway Talk forum. It might be better under the Fictional one IMHO.
I'm sorry, I really wasn't sure in which forum to post this. Theoretically, the roads I'm talking about already exist... I'll leave it up to the moderator to decide.
Don't forget about the State of Superior, which would consist of what is now the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
The State of Jefferson (southern Oregon/far northern California) would be another hypothetical state to keep in mind...
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2010, 01:58:05 PM
Don't forget about the State of Superior, which would consist of what is now the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
A lot of that is usually tongue-in-cheek. Although the distance from Lansing causes some dissatisfaction among Yoopers in terms of perceived lack of voice compared to the southern parts of the state, there's never been a serious secession movement.
If North Jersey seceded from South Jersey, the south would have a crisis... more miles of roads on the state and county levels, much smaller tax base.
Quote from: rawmustard on February 03, 2010, 02:58:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 03, 2010, 01:58:05 PM
Don't forget about the State of Superior, which would consist of what is now the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
A lot of that is usually tongue-in-cheek. Although the distance from Lansing causes some dissatisfaction among Yoopers in terms of perceived lack of voice compared to the southern parts of the state, there's never been a serious secession movement.
How much representation do the Yoopers
deserve? After all, the upper peninsula has a population of about 300,000 out of 10,000,000 total in Michigan. Obviously, they shouldn't be ignored, but the fact is in the current American political system, they don't warrant much attention...their interests shouldn't offset those of lower Michigan.
Interesting in that the USA is now in the midst of the longest period in its history without the admission of a new state (most recent - Hawaii on 1959-08-21).
The easiest hypotheticals (besides Puerto Rico) that I can think of offhand are if disaster would ever strike in Canada regarding the 'Quebec Issue'.
Mike
I think, maybe not in the next decade or so, but absolutely in my lifetime, California will split into at least two states. California is just too populated and too diverse to properly govern itself, and sooner than later, their financial woes will demand some kind of split. Who knows, maybe we'll see a SoCalDOT and a NoCalDOT some day.
^^^
That would also balance out the fact that California, not counting the upcoming 2010 census, has over 20% of the electoral votes needed to become president. Of course, CA could also do away with the winner-take-all system. But, that's any thread on its own.
Instead of two "CAs," I'm waiting for California to attempt to secede from the union. On its own, CA would be one of the top ten economies in the world.
Last I saw, California has a little over 10% of the EVs.
In fact, in 2004, recall that John Kerry won California's EVs, yet GWB won the election.
The big self-advantage for dividing California into two or more states is the added power that that would give to them in the USSenate.
Mike
Western Illinois declared itself the state of Forgottonia over 20 years ago based on lack of Roads!
Quote from: mgk920 on February 04, 2010, 12:00:20 AM
Last I saw, California has a little over 10% of the EVs.
In fact, in 2004, recall that John Kerry won California's EVs, yet GWB won the election.
The big self-advantage for dividing California into two or more states is the added power that that would give to them in the USSenate.
Mike
Yes, it's over 10% of the overall EVs, but as you only need 270 to win, 55 is over 20% of that.
And, your right, 2004 showed it's possible, but if it's still harder than if the candidate wins it.
State of Sequoyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah)
Quote from: 3467 on February 04, 2010, 12:03:14 AM
Western Illinois declared itself the state of Forgottonia over 20 years ago based on lack of Roads!
I bet you Forgottonia would make I-24 to St. Louis a reality...right? ;)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 04, 2010, 01:51:59 AM
Quote from: 3467 on February 04, 2010, 12:03:14 AM
Western Illinois declared itself the state of Forgottonia over 20 years ago based on lack of Roads!
I bet you Forgottonia would make I-24 to St. Louis a reality...right? ;)
Nope. I-24 would never reach Forgottonia. I-72, on the other hand, goes to Forgottonia.
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2010, 11:36:32 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 04, 2010, 01:51:59 AM
Quote from: 3467 on February 04, 2010, 12:03:14 AM
Western Illinois declared itself the state of Forgottonia over 20 years ago based on lack of Roads!
I bet you Forgottonia would make I-24 to St. Louis a reality...right? ;)
Nope. I-24 would never reach Forgottonia. I-72, on the other hand, goes to Forgottonia.
Ah, huge difference there. So US 67 freeway north of Alton becomes Forgottonia's future backbone? :D
Even if southern Illinois broke off from the rest of the state and formed the state of Egypt - seems to be a common name for the 16 county region in the Google News Archive briefs - I doubt I-24 would go any further. There was a lot of opposition to Freeway 410 from farmers, which would still have to be overcome. The only changes I think would come about would be new state highway shields and maybe changes to the speed limits.
Surely mile markers would change, and thus exit numbers?
If Superior split from MI, I'd expect a push for another interstate than I-75. If Long Island became a state, then it would push for some renumbering to give it a 2di (probably bringing I-80 across Manhattan on I-95, taking I-695, I-295 and I-495 to Riverhead, though extending I-87 southwards is another possibility)
I've often thought that NYC area (at least the NY part) should be it's own state apart from the rest of New York.
The state of Gotham (for lack of a better name :sombrero:) would consist of New York City, Long Island and an indeterminate stretch of the lower Hudson River. Tappan Zee Bridge? I-84 Bridge?
Quote from: english si on February 04, 2010, 02:05:53 PM
Surely mile markers would change, and thus exit numbers?
Mostly in Illinois, yes. But for the hypothetical state of Egypt, only I-64 might see a change in mile markers and exit numbers (I'm assuming here only the southern 16 counties break away. If more of the state decides to part ways with Chicagoland, a different name would probably be used). Since in Illinois state and US route mile markers reset at the county lines, there wouldn't be any changes other mile marker changes.
IMHO, the only plausable posbilities, in order of plausability are:
- Northern and Southern California, split probably along the straight line formed by the borders between Monterey, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo; and San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernadino counties. Which would result in two states that would be about the size of Pennsylvania and New York state, respectivly.
- New York City, perhaps with its metro area, and the rest of New York State.
- A "DC solution", which IMHO would require a 50 state approved Constitutional admendment, with a Columbia consisting of northern Virginia, suburban Maryland and DC as a state or state like entity, with a rest of Maryland and a rest of Virginia. (There is no way that DC will ever be granted representation in the Congress as is.)
- Parts of Canada, probably following either a Quebec withdrawal from Canada, or, more likely, IMHO, following a western Canada withdrawal and assession to the US.
Other than state line signage, and in the Canadian case a quick redesignation of various roads as "interstates" and "US routes", it would be generations before roads were affected in a way noticable to ordinary people.
I'm sure a new state would be rather quick to swap out its state highway marker, probably to a new symbol that reflects its identity better.
If Western Canada seceded. I would imagine the US would be reluctant to annex it for fear of war with what remained of Canada. Would Western Canada outside of Alberta want to be in the U.S. anyway?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 04, 2010, 09:30:32 PM
I'm sure a new state would be rather quick to swap out its state highway marker, probably to a new symbol that reflects its identity better.
How about the nightmarish possibility of a new state resorting to the default circle as its highway marker and adding yet another circle to the list. I don't even want to think about it!
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 04, 2010, 09:30:32 PM
If Western Canada seceded. I would imagine the US would be reluctant to annex it for fear of war with what remained of Canada. Would Western Canada outside of Alberta want to be in the U.S. anyway?
At least at one time some of them did.
One of the reasons that the Canadian transcontinental railroad was built was to lessen the change of the western provinces seceding.
I read in Reader's Digest a while back that the farmers on the plains feel they have more in common with their brethren in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana, Iowa, Nebraska than they do with the big businessmen "back east" in Toronto and Montreal and government bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Though, I bet their U.S. counterparts would say the same thing about about businessmen from the eastern half of the U.S. and of Washington D.C.
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 04, 2010, 09:39:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 04, 2010, 09:30:32 PM
I'm sure a new state would be rather quick to swap out its state highway marker, probably to a new symbol that reflects its identity better.
How about the nightmarish possibility of a new state resorting to the default circle as its highway marker and adding yet another circle to the list. I don't even want to think about it!
Well, think about it; if a region holds the rest of its state in contempt so much as to try breaking away and forming its own state, it's liable to have a deal of pride that it'd want to express in a state highway marker. Think of what happens when a region splits off to form a new country–there's always a bunch of nationalistic fervor, slogans are adopted, flags and anthems are introduced, etc, etc, often even when the new government doesn't even exert control over all its claimed territory yet.
Quote- A "DC solution", which IMHO would require a 50 state approved Constitutional admendment, with a Columbia consisting of northern Virginia, suburban Maryland and DC as a state or state like entity, with a rest of Maryland and a rest of Virginia. (There is no way that DC will ever be granted representation in the Congress as is.)
Likewise, there is no way that Virginia will give up its cash cow. So this idea is pretty much D.O.A.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 04, 2010, 09:30:32 PM
If Western Canada seceded. I would imagine the US would be reluctant to annex it for fear of war with what remained of Canada. Would Western Canada outside of Alberta want to be in the U.S. anyway?
Since Canada's political center is to the left of ours, US conservatives might blanch at adding population from even the more conservative Canadian provinces, which on average are more supportive than the 50 existing states of gun control, government involvement in health care, etc.
I don't see why mile markers and exit numbers would have to change. While most roads start at 0, not all do. Just look at ON 401, ON 400, I-90 in NY, I-276, I-395, and I-17 (also I-86/NY 17, but that's just exit numbers as NY is sequential).
Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2010, 02:06:10 PM
I don't see why mile markers and exit numbers would have to change. While most roads start at 0, not all do. Just look at ON 401, ON 400, I-90 in NY, I-276, I-395, and I-17 (also I-86/NY 17, but that's just exit numbers as NY is sequential).
Because if some of these interstates would cross into a new hypothetical state, the new state would use new milemarkers relative to its line. For example, if Superior were to break off from Michigan (and provided county boundaries remained the same), I-75 would have its Superior milemarker 0 in the middle of the Straits of Mackinac, and the exit numbers in Superior would be adjusted accordingly. Only 3dis would have continuity with milemarkers from a previous state, as is done currently in many places.
I don't know if there's anything that says you have to adjust that stuff on a 2di, though it's certainly more desireable. I-86's exist numbers in NY are actually an extension of the numbers in PA (though I-86's exist numbers also have a number of other issues).
Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2010, 02:34:30 PM
I don't know if there's anything that says you have to adjust that stuff on a 2di, though it's certainly more desireable. I-86's exist numbers in NY are actually an extension of the numbers in PA (though I-86's exist numbers also have a number of other issues).
Exactly, when I-24 dips into Georgia just west of Chattanooga, it retains the mile markers and exit numbers as if it had never left Tennessee.
I want to see Mexico annexed, and just have it split up with state names they Mexico already has for their different regions.Before when I was a little younger I wantED California split up into North and South California, like North and South Dakota, but I think all Californians should remain united.....
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 06, 2010, 11:54:30 AM
I want to see Mexico annexed
Not me. Mexico is basically a third world country and annexing it would bring the US down. It would cost trillions of dollars to bring the basic infrastructure to the level of the rest of the country. Leave Mexico as a separate country.
Quote from: bugo on February 06, 2010, 05:25:44 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 06, 2010, 11:54:30 AM
I want to see Mexico annexed
Not me. Mexico is basically a third world country and annexing it would bring the US down. It would cost trillions of dollars to bring the basic infrastructure to the level of the rest of the country. Leave Mexico as a separate country.
Lets see.....We would save millions(maybe even billions) off border patrol and deportation payments, not to mention all the oil we would could steal.Plus, imagine the joy of all the fresh pavement of a brand new section of the Interstate Highway system.
EDIT: Also, don't forget all the tourist destinations in Mexico.If Mexico is annexed, we get all the tourist money too hehe. :-D
Border/oil are valid points, but bugo's point about the basic infrastructure level trumps those...
Also there would be the difficulties of assimilating a culture with very different norms than the current American country (different language, different values, differing details in religion, etc)
Quote from: mightyace on February 04, 2010, 06:17:09 PM
I've often thought that NYC area (at least the NY part) should be it's own state apart from the rest of New York.
The state of Gotham (for lack of a better name :sombrero:) would consist of New York City, Long Island and an indeterminate stretch of the lower Hudson River. Tappan Zee Bridge? I-84 Bridge?
Wouldn't be practical. Bear in mind that the Delaware and Catskill aqueduct systems (which together provide 90% of the city's water supply) extend well into Greene and Delaware counties, even a bit into Scoharie County (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsmaps_wide.shtml). The city would be drawing water from a separate state if you put a border anywhere between it and Albany, pretty much.
^^^^
That's not much different than what LA does.
Granted the Colorado River is part of the eastern boundary of California, but much of that water originates upriver in other states.
California should definently be split into two states, due to its enormous size in population. Eureka has nothing in common with say, El Centro in the Southeast corner. They could easily split into five states like Texas can do according to thier constitution. The state of Jefferson was tried and rejected in the Texas panhandle. Amarillo would have been its capital. The state of Franklin was also a no-go for the eastern part of Tennessee.
Split New York State at IH 81. East of the 81 remains New York. The rest is "Western New York".
A shield design with Niagara Falls on it would be pretty freaking sweet.
Instead of creating more states we should combine small, low populated states. My ideas: State of New England (CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME); a new state combining PA and NJ; State of Delmarva (DE, MD, VA). That would make 42 US States.
surely the problem is more in the big empty bit between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast states (there are a few exceptions).
OK, New England has some small states - but a combined state would have about 14.5 million people (5 biggest - about halfway between FL and IL)
I'm not entirely sure that the liberals would be too happy with 10 Northeastern Senate places and Electoral College votes disappearing either!
Perhaps a better way of splitting it would be into 3:
- Northern New England (can include Atlantic Provinces if you want) : VT, NH and ME - 3.3 million - bigger than Iowa, smaller than Connecticut - Atlantic Provinces give it 5.6 million
- Southern New England : CT and RI - 4.6 million - bigger than SC, smaller than AL.
- Massachusetts - 6.6 million - Arizona sized.
The original premise of this thread prompted me to spend the bulk of yesterday creating a theoretical "what-if" map, whereby the "Lower 48" becomes the "Lower 60" (59 if you exclude D.C.). Still working on finishing up that webpage, but here's a dozen of the "what if" possibilities regarding the Interstate system. Infer what you will until I post the map page...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-5_JE.png&hash=0d058d2918bc9014eb8dbc3e956a5fb8f9c603c4) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-10_WT.png&hash=81df2b1dcb9aac36c1be110ca67d1ddebcbc88d8) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-15_SO.png&hash=df442e06a0dd3ff7576aee33d8b5d02e6fbaee02) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-35_NT.png&hash=f497027dddffd27823ef8d12bc27822047d0019d) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-40_SQ.png&hash=293b0f7ac353b34c5453ec1dc5ffe851e41847f2) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-55_NI.png&hash=d353b81999f58e207ff9f439039c84efabaca8dd) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-66_NO.png&hash=c123712473ef1d920e07381d93412662d07e10e1) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-75_SU.png&hash=f8dfd7d2f7915aeff781c1d1112900551daefd65) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-81_FR.png&hash=380b4826867f28ea58fa9230796faa4f1e765655) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-87_LI.png&hash=9acfaf8ed2663f31a2b9e7c062bc39fd3b43808f) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-90_LN.png&hash=7c8a566e50532519ea636562a4e69fee8066d0fb) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FI-95_DE.png&hash=e8f3724c60ac85bbda0442732461b20bf5625653)
Heh, here's one - if McDonald County MO got their way, we'd have a state in and of itself
Quote from: Mike_OH on February 08, 2010, 03:41:01 PM
Instead of creating more states we should combine small, low populated states. My ideas: State of New England (CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME); a new state combining PA and NJ; State of Delmarva (DE, MD, VA). That would make 42 US States.
Heh, I've toyed with the idea of CT/MA/RI being one state and VT/NH being another, myself (Maine is already large enough on its own).
The fun part is trying to figure out what to do with all the resulting duplicate town names. The CT/MA/RI state would end up with a good three dozen of them. Sicking "New" or "Old" in front of one of the dupes would, functionally speaking, work just fine in most cases, but aesthetically speaking that would start to get really stale and clunky in a hurry. There are already several cases of this (e.g., Fairfield and New Fairfield, CT). I already don't particularly like it and would rather there not be more of them.
A better idea would be to resurrect some more old native names, I'd think. Then we can cut down on the duplicating with (Old) England, too!
NYC up to the Bear Mountain Bridge, all of North Jersey from 195 and the Turnpike on west, and Connecticut to Bridgeport as a new state. South Jersey and Delaware merge to form the new state of Lenape.
Maine isn't large enough to be a state on it's own if CT and MA aren't.
Viable states aren't a matter of geographical size, but population (and culture and so on). That said, Wyoming can cope with it's population. Monaco, various island nations, etc with smaller populations. Go back to 1776 and they coped with smaller populations in the colonies - even Vermont can cope with it's population as a viable state.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 09, 2010, 06:04:28 PM
NYC up to the Bear Mountain Bridge, all of North Jersey from 195 and the Turnpike on west, and Connecticut to Bridgeport as a new state. South Jersey and Delaware merge to form the new state of Lenape.
Lenape would be better for the N, not S
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
What if the creation of a new state out of an existing state causes the existing state to fall below the minimum? hmmm....
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on February 09, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 09, 2010, 06:04:28 PM
NYC up to the Bear Mountain Bridge, all of North Jersey from 195 and the Turnpike on west, and Connecticut to Bridgeport as a new state. South Jersey and Delaware merge to form the new state of Lenape.
Lenape would be better for the N, not S
Doesn't look like that to me. Lenape would be fine for south Jersey/Delaware
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
IIRC, the minimum population for a territory applying for statehood was 60,000.
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
Wyoming is the 51st (DC has higher)
Quote from: Bickendan on February 10, 2010, 12:20:54 AM
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
IIRC, the minimum population for a territory applying for statehood was 60,000.
What was Nevada's population upon statehood?
*ALL* that the USA's Constitution says about admitting new states is:
"Article. IV.
Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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."
There is *NO* minimum population threshold nor anything else, it is totally a political decision of Congress.
Mike
Quote from: Bickendan on February 10, 2010, 12:20:54 AM
Quote from: papaT10932 on February 09, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires any new territory applying for statehood have, at the minimum, the same population of the least populated state in the union. Right now, I think the least populated state is either Wyoming or Alaska... so any new state must have (at least) the population of which ever state is lower.
IIRC, the minimum population for a territory applying for statehood was 60,000.
IIRC The 60,000 figure was the figure in the law regulating the original Northwest Territory (now Ohio, MI, IN, IL, WI and part of MN)
Quote from: mgk920 on February 10, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
What was Nevada's population upon statehood?
Admission to the union: 1864
1860 census: 7,000
1870 census: 43,000
(the state didn't grow significantly above 40,000 mark until the 1910 census)
The history of Nevada's statehood is based on the Civil War. The Republicans rushed Nevada to statehood in time for the 1864 election, since it was a certain 3 Electorial votes for Lincoln. It was not ready, and when the mines played out, remained a dry and unpopulated place. But for this, it is likely that it would have come into the union near the time of Arizona. One can even make a case for it to have still been a territory to this day. It was expanded, the only state to have major territorial additions after statehood in 1866 and in 1868. It was a failed state, unable to support a legitimate sized population.
It was a bankrupt state until it discovered legal gambling in the 1930s. Even up to the 1980s, it was a small state, in congressional terms an "at-large" state, where the state gets one congressman. To this day the "rest of Nevada" distict is the largest non-at-large district in the country.
I figure I'll bump this thread again since the Free Press has an article mentioning new discussion of U.P. secession (http://www.freep.com/article/20120506/NEWS06/205060541/51st-state-Yoopers-are-talking-up-secession-from-Michigan-again?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE). I don't think I ever realized just how close it actually was (defeated by one vote in the 70s according to the article).
Quote from: rawmustard on May 06, 2012, 09:47:49 AM
I figure I'll bump this thread again since the Free Press has an article mentioning new discussion of U.P. secession (http://www.freep.com/article/20120506/NEWS06/205060541/51st-state-Yoopers-are-talking-up-secession-from-Michigan-again?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE). I don't think I ever realized just how close it actually was (defeated by one vote in the 70s according to the article).
Maybe the UP should be back to Wisconsin. ;) I quoted the best part.
QuoteLooking to Wisconsin
Scott Sult, owner of New York Deli, said he was born and raised in Marquette. He also travels frequently for business to metro Detroit, which is where his wife is from.
Although he said he does not believe a new state makes sense, he noted that residents in parts of the U.P. tend look to Wisconsin for such things as major shopping.
"A lot of people say that Green Bay is the capital of the U.P.," he said.
Many in the U.P. live closer to Wisconsin than lower Michigan, said Charles Bergdahl, another Marquette County commissioner. They can get to Milwaukee, Minneapolis and even Chicago faster than to Detroit. They cheer for the Green Bay Packers instead of the Detroit Lions. And the majority, Bergdahl said, are more likely to do business with Wisconsin than the Lower Peninsula.
I see oodles of lost-looking Michigan-plated cars here in the Appleton area, especially around the Fox River Mall area and the downtown Appleton Performing Arts Center and nightlife district, all the time, so the anecdote on dem Yoopers traveling to Wisconsin for shopping and entertainment purposes is certainly true.
OTOH, if Da YooPee were to be transferred to Wisconsin, several of their most major place names would have to be changed - For example, there are already cities and counties in Wisconsin named 'Menomonie' and 'Marquette', highways M-28, M-35 and many others would need renumbering, etc. OTOH, they could probably keep their '906' telephone area code and 498xx and 499xx USPS ZIP Codes.
Mike
....wisconsin got robed by every state it touches except iowa, illinois took northern illinois (from the tip of lake michigan including chicagoland and rockford-north) michigan of course got the U.P. and minnesota got the land east of the mississippi river, including its current capitol St. Paul, all that got taken from wisconsin...that being said chicago wouldnt be as big as it is if it werent part of illinois, because the canal from the illinois river to lake michigan wouldnt have happened...
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 07, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
....wisconsin got robed by every state it touches except iowa, illinois took northern illinois (from the tip of lake michigan including chicagoland and rockford-north) michigan of course got the U.P. and minnesota got the land east of the mississippi river, including its current capitol St. Paul, all that got taken from wisconsin...that being said chicago wouldnt be as big as it is if it werent part of illinois, because the canal from the illinois river to lake michigan wouldnt have happened...
You must mean "taken from" in some special sense, because once a state is admitted its boundaries are fixed, with the special situation of West Virginia. Taken from what we once thought we might get?
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 07, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
....wisconsin got robed by every state it touches except iowa, illinois took northern illinois (from the tip of lake michigan including chicagoland and rockford-north) michigan of course got the U.P. and minnesota got the land east of the mississippi river, including its current capitol St. Paul, all that got taken from wisconsin...that being said chicago wouldnt be as big as it is if it werent part of illinois, because the canal from the illinois river to lake michigan wouldnt have happened...
The rails still would've come to Chicago, and it still would be as big. The rails built Chicago, not the I&M Canal. However, it would be more of a tri-state area than it is now as the line between what was Wisconsin and what was originally Illinois is about 151st Street, and would cut right through the middle of downtown Plainfield. I'd still be living in Illinois, but Hobsini would be in Wisconsin.
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2012, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 07, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
....wisconsin got robed by every state it touches except iowa, illinois took northern illinois (from the tip of lake michigan including chicagoland and rockford-north) michigan of course got the U.P. and minnesota got the land east of the mississippi river, including its current capitol St. Paul, all that got taken from wisconsin...that being said chicago wouldnt be as big as it is if it werent part of illinois, because the canal from the illinois river to lake michigan wouldnt have happened...
You must mean "taken from" in some special sense, because once a state is admitted its boundaries are fixed, with the special situation of West Virginia. Taken from what we once thought we might get?
And the situations of the original 13, given that their claims went at least to the Mississippi if not to the Pacific. (Maine and Vermont being even specialer cases.) I was reading up on how Michigan was robbed by Ohio, but the one that burns me is Maine being robbed by Canada due to British duplicity. New Jersey's northern boundary could have been farther north, Connecticut could have had Enfield, most of the crooks in every state's line are due to survey errors...
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:20:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2012, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on May 07, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
....wisconsin got robed by every state it touches except iowa, illinois took northern illinois (from the tip of lake michigan including chicagoland and rockford-north) michigan of course got the U.P. and minnesota got the land east of the mississippi river, including its current capitol St. Paul, all that got taken from wisconsin...that being said chicago wouldnt be as big as it is if it werent part of illinois, because the canal from the illinois river to lake michigan wouldnt have happened...
You must mean "taken from" in some special sense, because once a state is admitted its boundaries are fixed, with the special situation of West Virginia. Taken from what we once thought we might get?
And the situations of the original 13, given that their claims went at least to the Mississippi if not to the Pacific. (Maine and Vermont being even specialer cases.) I was reading up on how Michigan was robbed by Ohio, but the one that burns me is Maine being robbed by Canada due to British duplicity. New Jersey's northern boundary could have been farther north, Connecticut could have had Enfield, most of the crooks in every state's line are due to survey errors...
Well, maybe it wasn't such a bad idea for the then Wisconsin Territory to lose what is now Chicagoland....
<DUCKS and RUNS!!!!>
:wow:
OTOH, I saw an article a few weeks ago (no link handy offhand) where parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina state line are being resurveyed and the trouble that it is causing for residents, businesses and property owners along the way. One business that is right tight to the line, a combination gas station and fireworks stand, may be forced out of business because the corrected state line would put it in North Carolina, where most fireworks are illegal, instead of in its current South Carolina, where pretty much anything that is 'Class C' is perfectly OK.
Mike
Additionally, ISTR that the Illinois-Wisconsin state line was defined to be at exactly 42 degrees 30 minutes north. The line that was surveyed at the time, and is still the modern-day recognized state line, varies from the actual 42.5N by as much as about 1 km, with the greatest error being near Lake Michigan. If it were to be correctly resurveyed today, for example, most of modern-day downtown Beloit, WI to about three blocks northward from the present state line would then be in Illinois. OTOH, a portion of Illinois farther west to the Mississippi River would then be in Wisconsin.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 07, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
OTOH, I saw an article a few weeks ago (no link handy offhand) where parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina state line are being resurveyed and the trouble that it is causing for residents, businesses and property owners along the way. One business that is right tight to the line, a combination gas station and fireworks stand, may be forced out of business because the corrected state line would put it in North Carolina, where most fireworks are illegal, instead of in its current South Carolina, where pretty much anything that is 'Class C' is perfectly OK.
Mike
This has come up in other recent resurveyings, and I believe what ultimately happens is that the borders stay where they are because Congress established that whatever borders existed at X point in time were the borders period, regardless of what the technical definitions should have been.
Quote from: rawmustard on May 06, 2012, 09:47:49 AM
I figure I'll bump this thread again since the Free Press has an article mentioning new discussion of U.P. secession (http://www.freep.com/article/20120506/NEWS06/205060541/51st-state-Yoopers-are-talking-up-secession-from-Michigan-again?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE). I don't think I ever realized just how close it actually was (defeated by one vote in the 70s according to the article).
As a native Yooper (Mike, spell it right like we do, it's "the UP"), I have mixed feelings about secession. If we had the originally proposed state borders, the basically the three easternmost counties of the UP would be Michigan, and the rest would have been in another state. At one point, Michigan Territory extended over most of the upper Great Lakes region. Brown, Milwaukee, Crawford, and Iowa counties in Wisconsin, plus Des Moines and Dubuque counties in Iowa, were created by the Michigan Territory government, and still exist to this day in their current states. At the time Michigan petitioned for statehood, they only wanted a certain area, and accepted the remainder of what is the UP as compensation for the loss of Toledo.
On an emotional level, the UP is a
de facto separate state from Lower Michigan, even though it isn't that way in a
de jure sense. Half of our local TV stations are from Green Bay. Unlike the trolls, we tend to measure snowfalls by the foot, not the inch. We're Yoopers first, Michiganders second, and root for the Packers and other teams from neighboring states disproportionately. It takes a worse storm for our schools to be cancelled during the winter, and unless 5' falls overnight, we don't declare disasters very often.
The recent frustrations surfacing are some very real issues related to the role of the state in local governance at the county and municipal levels. The UP has a third of the state's land area, but only 299,200 or so of the state's 9.8 million people. At various points, the UP sends more tax revenues to Lansing than the state sends back. I know many people up here who would be very mad if the state bails out Detroit with the taxpayers' money just on principle because UP money would be involved.
State policies have limited school revenues yet increased what the districts must do with their funding. The school district in Newberry is the largest east of the Mississippi River and expends thousands of dollars a day just to operate its bus fleet, yet receives the same state funding per student as smaller districts downstate. Marquette County is larger than the Rhode Island with 1,272 miles of primary and secondary county roads to maintain.
The worst thing that ever happened to the UP on a political level is term limits, which has meant the loss of potential seniority in the Legislature. There will never be another Dominic Jacobetti, who served from January 1955 until his death just after the election in November 1994, to champion our needs and desires in Lansing. Only one governor in the state's history has come from the UP, Chase Osborn, who served a single two-year term, 1911—13. The last high-ranking politician from the UP was Lt. Gov. Connie Binsfeld, originally from the Munising area, who served during Gov. Engler's first two terms in the 1990s. Without the population, and we like it this way up here, we don't have the clout in a capitol 235 miles from our border.
Were they to vote tomorrow, I'd vote for secession on the emotional level. The roadgeek in me would be excited to see what a UPDOT could do to set up a new numbering scheme with new highway markers and such. My logical side would appreciate the fact that local politicians could be reacting to very different local needs than the more urbanized south of the state. But it probably won't happen. All is not lost though. We still have our own state fair while the one in Detroit hasn't been staged in a few years now. Our schools have separate state tournaments in several sports. We still have more national parks, more national forests, both of the state's mountain ranges, most of the state's waterfalls and more mineral and timer resources.
Quote from: Brandon on May 07, 2012, 07:44:44 PM
The rails still would've come to Chicago, and it still would be as big. The rails built Chicago, not the I&M Canal. However, it would be more of a tri-state area than it is now as the line between what was Wisconsin and what was originally Illinois is about 151st Street, and would cut right through the middle of downtown Plainfield. I'd still be living in Illinois, but Hobsini would be in Wisconsin.
The I&M Canal is responsible for the location of Chicago and the way all the railroads from the east have to curve north to reach it.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:20:04 PM
And the situations of the original 13, given that their claims went at least to the Mississippi if not to the Pacific. (Maine and Vermont being even specialer cases.) I was reading up on how Michigan was robbed by Ohio, but the one that burns me is Maine being robbed by Canada due to British duplicity. New Jersey's northern boundary could have been farther north, Connecticut could have had Enfield, most of the crooks in every state's line are due to survey errors...
There's also weirdness around the Mississippi River, since the borders are set as the Mississippi ran when the states were formed, yet the river has changed course since.
Quote from: deanej on May 08, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
There's also weirdness around the Mississippi River, since the borders are set as the Mississippi ran when the states were formed, yet the river has changed course since.
I think the international law rules on river boundaries would likely apply here: a river's gradually changing course through "accretion" (erosion of one bank, building up land on the other) shifts a river-based boundary, but "avulsion" (sudden change in course) doesn't. The Mississippi has lots of "avulsive" changes as the river cut a new channel to shortcut a river bend, which means the border stayed where it was. I don't know if there are places where the border has moved slightly through "accretion".
Of course, states could fix this problem (with Congress' concurrence) by swapping their cut-off lands as needed to move the border back to the river, at least until the river moves again. The U.S. and Mexico did something like that with the disputed Chamizal tract in El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, where the U.S. ceded back to Mexico land it arguably gained when the Rio Grande shifted course, and both countries lined the river in concrete to make sure it would never move again.
Quote from: Steve on May 07, 2012, 08:20:04 PM
And the situations of the original 13, given that their claims went at least to the Mississippi if not to the Pacific. (Maine and Vermont being even specialer cases.) I was reading up on how Michigan was robbed by Ohio, but the one that burns me is Maine being robbed by Canada due to British duplicity. New Jersey's northern boundary could have been farther north, Connecticut could have had Enfield, most of the crooks in every state's line are due to survey errors...
Here, north of the Border, we got the felling then we've been robbed the Aroostock Valley and part of the Oregon Territory. ^^;
QuoteOTOH, if Da YooPee were to be transferred to Wisconsin, several of their most major place names would have to be changed - For example, there are already cities and counties in Wisconsin named 'Menomonie' and 'Marquette', highways M-28, M-35 and many others would need renumbering, etc. OTOH, they could probably keep their '906' telephone area code and 498xx and 499xx USPS ZIP Codes.
I could imagine the following how about Menomonie-on-Lake-Michigan or Marquette-on-Lake-Superior or Marquette-on-the-Lake? (Then we got numerous Highland Park and Springfield in the U.S.
I find it interesting that a lot the places that have grumbled about forming their own state; The UP, western Illinois, way northern California, etc.; are all places where there are hardly any people. It's almost an inevitable side effect of proportional representation that people from rural areas will feel ignored by their state government. Fewer people scattered over a much larger area makes it tougher (and more costly) to do the same kind of civic stuff as we do in the cities.
I've seen that in my own life, growing up in a northern Wisconsin map dot and now living in the MKE. People are often resentful of their own state's population centers. I'm sure people in other states experience that phenomenon where the name of their capital city is used as a slur. I grew up with the milieu that we were better than those dumb ol' cities down south with their traffic and crime and arts and diversity and noise and traffic. Having lived in both, I now see the advantages and disadvantages of both places.
Ironically, giving these sparsely populated places their own states would create the opposite problem where a relatively tiny population suddenly has a LOT of power. Doesn't really seem fair to go out of the way to give 300K people the same influence as 8 million. I mean obviously we have big states and small states through quirks of history and geography, but to carve out new states for disgruntled country folk in the 21st Century can't be seriously considered. It's just a fun way to generate some attention for the concerns of a region.
Quote from: oscar on May 08, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 08, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
There's also weirdness around the Mississippi River, since the borders are set as the Mississippi ran when the states were formed, yet the river has changed course since.
I think the international law rules on river boundaries would likely apply here: a river's gradually changing course through "accretion" (erosion of one bank, building up land on the other) shifts a river-based boundary, but "avulsion" (sudden change in course) doesn't. The Mississippi has lots of "avulsive" changes as the river cut a new channel to shortcut a river bend, which means the border stayed where it was. I don't know if there are places where the border has moved slightly through "accretion".
Delaware/NJ border has not moved despite accretion. I think it comes down to how the state boundary was legally defined when it was established, but I don't view any of those cases as disputes.
Quote from: Steve on May 08, 2012, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 08, 2012, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 08, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
There's also weirdness around the Mississippi River, since the borders are set as the Mississippi ran when the states were formed, yet the river has changed course since.
I think the international law rules on river boundaries would likely apply here: a river's gradually changing course through "accretion" (erosion of one bank, building up land on the other) shifts a river-based boundary, but "avulsion" (sudden change in course) doesn't. The Mississippi has lots of "avulsive" changes as the river cut a new channel to shortcut a river bend, which means the border stayed where it was. I don't know if there are places where the border has moved slightly through "accretion".
Delaware/NJ border has not moved despite accretion. I think it comes down to how the state boundary was legally defined when it was established, but I don't view any of those cases as disputes.
Isn't there some industrial property on the northeast shore of the Delaware River that is in fact in Delaware (especially near the I-295 bridges)?
Mike
Not that its recognized by anyone but there is that "State of Jefferson" that consists of the top of CA and lower bits of OR. I doubt anyone but the people that live within that "state" would want a new state to be cut out of 2 states that already exist...
You could probably make over 100 states out of what we have. Another being NYC being its own state (all the boroughs) and upstate being seperated
Long Island has also proposed separating, which would split NYC, as they want to take Brooklyn and Queens with them!
The UP has its own tournaments in cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, and track and field.
Quote from: deanej on May 09, 2012, 03:18:50 PM
Long Island has also proposed separating, which would split NYC, as they want to take Brooklyn and Queens with them!
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/new.html
Quote from: Steve on May 11, 2012, 07:08:39 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/new.html
QuoteJust for a larf, odd numbers go E-W, evens go N-S
I disagree with this, because it violates a pretty well-established protocol (interstates, US routes, and a lot of state highways) without a valid reason. I think it would just add to driver confusion.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 11, 2012, 07:16:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 11, 2012, 07:08:39 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/new.html
QuoteJust for a larf, odd numbers go E-W, evens go N-S
I disagree with this, because it violates a pretty well-established protocol (interstates, US routes, and a lot of state highways) without a valid reason. I think it would just add to driver confusion.
First of all, this is a rebellious state, so they're doing things their own way. Second of all, they don't even have a US route, and their Interstate system is all fecocked. Third of all... I feel like it. (And by the way, NY's early state route system seems to have mostly followed odd EW even NS.)
Monroe county does as well, though as they don't post country route numbers, nobody notices.