As a resident of wisconsin, I’m in favor of consolidating the entire country under our rule, as we are obviously the most superior people found anywhere. If you do not submit,well… our cheese-based weapons researched is progressing rapidly.
As a fellow resident of Wisconsin I was simply going to recommend that Wisconsin annex the Upper Penninsula of Michigan, Chicago, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, The Western Bank of The Mississippi, and secure sovern and exclusive shipping rights to Lakes Superior and Michigan. I see that my plans have not been nearly ambitious enough.
Wisconsin rules. Or it should anyway.
As another Wisconsinite, I feel obliged to point out that when you refered to the UP you failed to call it “occupied wisconsin.” rest assured that the state agents who will soon be breaking down your door and taking you away for questioning and possiable reeducation will not deny you your right to instead remove the stain of honor upon your families name by killing yourself with a heart attack inducing Bratwurst. May Favre have mercy upon your soul. 
re: the OP
My major concern would be the traumatic ending of beloved college football rivalries. That and the constitutional issues involved in only combining states (the Senatorial represenation of small states would be even less evident, and part of the constitutional framework was the recognition that the states have different sizes.)
“Who’s to say? Does a peacock need all those feathers?”
–Fat Tony
I must admit, I look at RI and DE on a map and think “why”?
If I may wax a little (I won’t claim to wax poetic or anything, just wax). Clearly the similarities between any of the United States outweigh the differences. But I think this can be said for any groups of people. The differences that exist, however, should not simply be swept under the rug. Go travelling to some of those states which look identical. Look into the different histories. Listen the differences in how people talk. Not just the accent, but the expressions. I heard a woman today on Jeff Foxworthy’s radio show tell him that although it had been raining earlier in the day (where she was) now it was “just spittin”. It took me a few seconds to realize what she was talking about.
All I am saying is that there are definite culteral differences in different areas. While we don’t have to cling to them in a way which divides us as a nation, neither should we abandon them as backward or irrelivent.
Our federal system is somewhat unique in history in this regard. It combines the seperate and soveriegn interests of States into a federation. I truly believe it is a model for the evolution of a global government. That some day we could devise a system for providing a global government which united the world and at the same time celebrating the various cultural differences amongst us.
OK, wax off.
Indeed it is. Witness the cheese laser, developed at (where else?) the University of Wisconsin.
I figred immediately that the food-industry rationale was just a cover for Wisconsin’s top-secret cheese-based WMD program.
At the time, it seemed like a good idea, and now it’s too late to change. 
But neither of those states is the smallest, by population. Alaska, Montana, Wyoming,…
Hey, if you guys don’t want Alaska, we’ll take it.
Just because they have been complicit inthe reduction of their own sovereignty in the last 150 years or so, does not mean that the states arenot sovereign entities.
How did my old history professor put it? “Before the Civil War, you began a sentence with ‘The United States are…’. After the Civil War, that changed to ‘The United States is…’.”
While the existence of the Constitution points to the fact that the near complete sovereignty provided under the Articles of Confederation was not, in the end, to our benefit, the reason for states is as evident now as it ever was.
The more you centralize government, the less work a corrupt entity has to do to turn it against our freedoms. Far from wanting to combine states , I would rather see some of the larger ones divide, especially those with lower populations, as it would encourage the citizens thereof to feel more enfranchised in their representation and political power.
in 1982, a book was published entitled “The Nine Nations of North America”, by a New York Times reporter, Joel Garreau.
The thesis of the book was that the North American continent contains nine regions. Within these regions, the terrain, the people, the industries, the economies, the politics, etc., are to some degree related, and significantly different than those in the other regions.
While I might well quibble with some parts of this thesis (Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, look a lot alike physically, but are poles apart politicaly) there is much here that is worthwhile. The book examines each region in detail and makes a pretty good case.
The Nine Nations are:
New England - consisting of the six states currently called New England, (less Greenwich and that corner of Connecticut), plus New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Labrador, and Newfoundland. Capitol: Boston. (In addition to the criteria described above, this region is that part of the continent where Red Sox fans outnumber Yankees fans – a pretty handy rule of thumb.)
The Foundery – the old industrial Northeast, which at that time was in significant decline, but has recently seen somewhat better times. The Foundery stretches from New York to Chicago, and from Pennsylvania to southern Ontario. Capitol: Detroit. (Four of the five boroughs of New York belong in the Foundery. Manhatten, on the other hand, is a financial capitol, not an industrial one.)
Dixie – The New South, being all of the old Confederacy, less the Florida penninsula. Capitol: Atlanta.
The Breadbasket – the Agricultural Midwest. Capitol: St. Louis. (Chicago is a border city, between the Breadbasket and the Foundery.) Includes Manitoba and Saskatewan.
Mexamerica – The Southwest, plus Mexico. Capitol: Los Angeles.
The Empty Quarter – The Rocky Mountain west, including Alberta and most of British Columbia, the Yukon Territories, and Alaska. Very small population, very rich natural resoruces, and not at all happy to be paying taxes to Washington and Ottawa. Capitol: Denver.
Ecotopia – The Pacific Northwest. A thin strip along the west coast, running from just south of San Francisco to Juneau, Alaska. A place where it is possible to hear the phrase “astrological birth control” used by people who expect to be taken seriously. Capitol: San Francisco.
The Islands – The Florida penninsula, plus virtually all of the Carribean island nations, including Cuba, the Bahamas, the Lesser Antillies, etc. Capitol: Miami.
Quebec – The current province of Quebec, less most of Montreal and a thin strip along the US border. Capitol: Quebec City.
(The nothernmost territories of Canada and the northern part of Alaska are part of a tenth nation, the Trans-Polar Innuit, which includes the northern parts of Aisa and Europe as well, which is why they are not considered at part of the “Nine Nations”.)
It is incorrect to assert that the states are not sovereign entities. Vis-à-vis each other, states are quite sovereign. They have delegated some of their sovereign authority to the federal government, but the status of one state compared to another is quite different than the status of one county compared to another county in the same state. States are not merely political boundaries drawn on a map for the purpose of defining administrative boundaries.
I find it quite ironic that this question is being mooted in this forum at the same time so many threads are addressing the issue raised by the supreme court of one of our sovereign states. I maintain there is a positive value to allowing the people of Massachusetts to be ruled by such a decision, just as there is a positive value to allowing the people of Ohio to be ruled by a contrary determination. It is quite unfortunate that, during the last 70 years, we have steadily eroded the meaning of “statehood” in our march to a strong federal government.
Be that as it may, one does wonder what true purpose statehood serves in many instances. I now eat at virtually the same restaurants whether I am at home in Ohio, visiting my dad in California, or visiting my kids in Virginia. Don’t even get me started on Safeway. And are there any truly different driving laws left any more from state to state? Maybe we could get a third of the states to eliminate “right on red” just as a matter of principle… :dubious:
But I think that redrawing states would allow for a strengthening of the meaning of statehood, not a further weakening as you seem to suggest. A lot of that erosion you mention has to do with the fact that the states as they are can’t have as much of an identity. It would be easier for a “Dixie” state as a whole to express an identity than it is for Mississippi and Alabama to express an idenitity while being separate from each other. IMHO, anyway.
I’m insulted by the author’s insinuation as to the irrelevance of Hawaii. At the very least, make it the Tenth Nation, considering it WAS one before it was annexed!
Zev, you obviously raise important concerns, that Americans have forgotten the whole reason America was created in the first place and thus we are at risk at obliterating that idea.
It is all about State Soverignity. States are soverign and you just recall the Civil War if you think other wise.
In the United States there is something called a “Militia” which I believe consists of every male from age 17 to 34.
If the Federal Government wanted to do something like obliterate State authority then the people would rise up so fast it’d make your head spin.
I am pleased to inform you DS, that this is only partially true.
Federalism has gone through many stages since the Civil War. It was greatly eroded (to the point of non-existance) in the LBJ administration (damn Democrats), but Reagen reversed this with his “New Federalism” program.
Clinton tried just the opposite.
He wanted his own “New Federalism” where he became the Executive of each State (Executive Order “Federalism” pp. 826 — If you think I’m joking, it literally says that the Executive of the Federal Government is the final word in all State Executive issues).
But that was over-ruled and now we are entering another true New Federalism era like that of Reagen’s.
Oh but so that I offer new material to this thread, not old material as many have already pointed out the above.
It is Unconstitutional to redraw State Boundaries.
You can not create a new State within the boundaries of a current State, you can not disolve one State into many, and you can not disolve one State into another.
Because of this inhibition it makes it fairly tough to just “do away with States”. Not putting the State Militias aside (Which considering more State Militias called National Guardsmen are fighting in Iraq than Regular soldiers, they are not a force to be laughed at) it is constitutionally difficult to do what you are stating.
The point of States is that we were not a nation but a Union.
This has never been done before in the world, and it might be done again with the European Union.
We are still a Union.
We are not a Nation indivisible, or any of that garbage in the pledge (the Pledge isn’t garbage but it certainly is propoganda).
This nation could disolve at any time that a State so wishes it. They may have to fight to stay out of the Union, but so what, just because the South lost doesn’t mean…Nevada or Texas will. Using those states as examples.
The point is, this Union is a contract.
States contract with the Federal Government (correction there was one attempted style of Union like this before, the Delian League I’ll explain that in a second).
Anyways, States contract with the Federal Government for protections of a certain ideology (Life liberty and the persuit of happiness).
In return, they are left to their own devices to an extent that they do not harm the liberty of other States, which is why they don’t have powers of tarrifs and such.
This is just like the individual’s contract to his Government as explained by Locke, Hobbes, and Kannt. We as individuals seek certain protections from the government, and seek assurances that certain liberties will not be infringed, if this is not abided there will be internal conflict.
Well the States are the same way. And because of this, the Federal Government has a much harder time abusing our rights as individuals.
The Delian League was different as city-states entered a union with Athens for protection. But Athens forcibly abused these city-states to serve her own ends.
Anyways…that’s all I have to say for now.
Darn it, consider this my “Edit”.
It is Executive Order 13083, entitled “Federalism”, page 826 you’ll find probably the number 1 reason I believe Clinton should be hung for treason.
The biggest omission I saw from that was Appalachia, which includes southwestern Pennsylvania, all of West Virginia, parts of western Virginia, Kentucky, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and parts of North Carolina. Very distinct cultural region. Should not be lumped either with the South or with the Rust Belt (which is what the Foundry is more commonly known as). Indianapolis is a triple border city (Rust Belt to the north, Breadbasket to the west, Appalachia to the south). Capitol is probably Lexington, although these people don’t put too much truck in capitols (or cities, for that matter).
Hawaii actually WAS discussed in the book… but it’s pretty tough to summarize a 200-page book in a single post…
Hawaii was included in a chapter on “Anomalies”, being those locations which didn’t really quite fit in with everywhere else. This included Manhatten (a financial capitol, indeed THE financial capitol, embedded in the middle of an industrial nation), Washington (a border city between the Foundery and Dixie – which explains its old description as having “the charm of a northern city and the efficiency of a southern one”), and Alaska (“Alaskans choose to live in a place where tomatoes won’t”). Hawaii, the author claims, is an anomaly because it is really part of TWO continents, being North America and Asia.
I would like to point out that during these discussions, no one ever wants to consolidate their state, always someone else’s.
Find two states that want to merge first and work on them before you come knocking on our doors…
Here’s an interesting tidbit.
If you want fifty states, you’re either going to have to have them be of significantly unequal population, or split the New York City urban area into two or more states. The NYC UA (as defined by the Census Bureau) contains somewhat in excess of 17 million people. The total population of the US (2000 Census) is about 285 million. Fifty equipopulous states would have to be around 5.7 million each, or a third of the size of the NYC UA.
Of course, the NYC UA also includes Newark and Long Island, so maybe that’s a solution there, although the five boroughs alone comprise well over 5.7 million.
The Los Angeles and Chicago UAs are also over the 5.7 million target, although in both cases you can probably divide them in two.
Now, sixteen states would let the NYC UA be a “state” all to itself. Would sixteen be a better number than fifty?