How were the size of our 50 states determined? By land grants? And who decided where the borders should be?
Politicians. That’s why it makes no sense.
Management decides where to open the next Borders, advised by marketing research, that’s who decides where a Borders should be. They try not to open right next door to a Barnes and Noble or a W.H.Smith.
In the case of Hawaii: geology.
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
Although he was kidding, AWB is on the right track. You have to look at it on a state-to-state basis. Each one has a different story. Now as a WAG service to all readers:
Considerations for State Size:
-
Population. The reason for states like Texas and Alaska being so large is that the population is scattered widely.
-
Transportation/communication speed. The original 13 colonies are smaller than the western states because the speed that it takes to contact everyone in the state was a lot slower in the late 1700’s than it was in the mid 1800’s. (Think railroads and telegraphs.)
-
Natural borders. Obviously things like rivers, mountain ranges, and neighboring countries and oceans will impose certain boundaries.
Another thing to consider, at least in terms of pre-1860’s states is that our country is very different than it was before the Civil War. (I’m sure some history buffs will correct me if I’m wrong on this, so here goes.) Previous to the war, the states had a lot more autonomy. The USA actually was a union of independent states that worked together for their mutual protection and economic well-being. However, as a result of the Civil War, the federal government took on a stronger role in order to prevent this from happening again.
What does that have to do with state size? The early states were made up of vaious colonies and the sizes of these colonies varied depending on the number of colonizers. In short, the sizes of the early states were set well before there was a United States.
(Sits back to wait for actual history majors to come along to shoot down all the previous statements.)
Mr. K’s Link of the Month:
Hi! I’m a history major here to shoot down all of Mr. KnowItAll’s arguments!
Actually, Mr. KIA’s arguments come close to part of the reason why the states east of the Mississippi tend to be smaller than those west of the Mississippi, but he doesn’t get the exact issue right (IMHO)- slavery.
Most of the states that joined the original 13 started off as “Territories.” These territories were huge swaths of land (such as the Northwest Territory, which encompassed Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) overseen by a Territorial Governor (or Military Governor) appointed by the President. As these areas became settled, they began to organize into smaller territories and petition the U.S. government for entry.
The reasons many of the easlier states (east of the Mississippi) were smaller than the later states (west of the Mississippi) were due to
[list]
[li]Travel conditions at the time. It’s hard to efficiently run a state if it takes a few weeks to travel across it; before railroads became common, then, the geographical condition for a ‘state’ needed to be smaller.[/li][li]Slavery. Each new state might only have a single Representative, but it would have two Senators. Given the divisiveness of the issue of slavery, it was generally established that for each non-slave holding state that entered the Union, one slave holding state would enter as well. Ergo, those territories north and south of the Mason-Dixon line needed to be divided into an equal number of states in order to keep the Senate’s precarious balance from falling apart.[/li]
Of course, now I get to sit back and wait for a History M.A. or Ph.D. to tear apart all of my arguments.
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
In the case of Alaska, we gracious Canucks decided that 54-40 wasn’t really worth fighting for and left the US with the panhandle. As for the rest of our Southern border (mostly) you have to thank the guy that came up with the 49th Parallel.
In the case of Alaska, we gracious Canucks decided that 54-40 wasn’t really worth fighting for and left the US with the panhandle. As for the rest of our Southern border (mostly) you have to thank the guy that came up with the 49th Parallel.
Inspite of CD Dexhaven’s brilliant reply as to who selects borders, I’m still interested as to whom within the state determines where the boundaries of the state should be which of course would have to be agreed upon by bordering states?
The original 13 states had their boundaries established by their colonial charters. One of the problems that the First Congress had was setting the boundaries, which conflicted in several parts. (Most colonies were given grants from “sea to sea”, so some states thought they had everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific.)
Congress hashed out the boundaries and basically told states like Virginia that the borders ended where they said it would.
When new states were made, Congress had to approve the borders. Presumably, there were surveyors involved.
kylen wrote:
Apparently, so did we U.S.ers. We settled for the 49th Parallel.
Some more history:
The people of Connecticutt (sp?) wondered the same thing. “How come we get this little piece and Virginia and Pennsylvania get so much?!?!” Congress heard their cries and sectioned off a piece of that NorthWest Territory and called it the Conneticutt (sp, broken clock theory) Western Reserve. So intrepid New Englanders packed up and moved there. They built little towns similar to what was back home with cute little churches and greens. Eventually they joined a bunch of other pioneers, petioned for statehood, and became the 17th state: OHIO. The old western reserve is NE Ohio (that’s why Western Reserve Univ. is in Cleveland). I grew up in Hudson (outside Akron) and we even had a private school called The Western Reserve Academy. And it was the cutest little town you would ever wanna see.