New stars on the flag?

edsg25 · May 13th, 2006, 02:30 PM

Due to your vast experience and decision making skills, you have been selected to serve on the prestigous U.S. Committee for New States.

You have been given the important task or reoganizing our nation with the addition of anywhere from three to five new states.

These states are to be established to allow government to function more efficiently.

The rules, established by Congress, as to the establishment of these new states includes the following:

• New states must represent major metropolitan areas

• Only the largest and most complex metro areas should be considered for reorganization; this recongnizes that smaller metro areas may be functioning perfect well in their existing states

• Each new state needs to be a viable state, based on the existing 50 states

• Serious considertion should be given to metro areas that cross state borders

So, with those rules and anywhere from three to five states to create, what states do you plan to support in the committee's decision making role? What are the boundaries of the new states? Why did you choose the states you chose? Why did you not include some other possibly obvious choices.

So, for example, the boundaries of the new state of Chicago are Chicago and its collar counties in Illinois, n.w. Indiana, and Kenosha Co. in Wisconsin.

Or an example of why a new state of New York City is being established is because the huge New York metro area needs to function without regards to current state lines

Or an example of why a new state is not being created in Houston is because this city relates too well to the state of Texas to remove it from the state.

None of the examples above are necessarily good....they just have been included for the purpose of example (so Houston may very well be an excellent candidte for its own state).

[B]SO, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WHICH 3 TO 5 STATES WILL WE BE ADDING?

ROCguy · May 13th, 2006, 04:54 PM

This is kind of stupid, the only one I would suggest doesn't even fit into your criterea, Upstate NY should split from downstate and become it's own state.

DeMaFrost · May 13th, 2006, 07:20 PM

My only suggestion, without much though, is North California and South California. Everyone talks about how different the two areas are, they should split the state in half.

I wouldn't considering combining the small NE states. They each have so much identity and history as small states. I also agree with the Upstate/NYC suggestion.

TroyBoy · May 13th, 2006, 08:55 PM

You want us to do your homework for you?
Perto Rico and Gaum are the only two i can think of and just to piss some people off ill include Canada, this is after all an American Forum.

Azn_chi_boi · May 13th, 2006, 09:25 PM

Put VT, NH, MA, RI, and the parts of CT that isn't in NYC's metro into one state.

Hecago · May 13th, 2006, 09:33 PM

Also Since Virginia and West Virginia were split because of the Civil War, they should be joined again.

samsonyuen · May 13th, 2006, 11:51 PM

^but that was over 200 years ago! They're as distinct as former same-staters like Maine and Massachusettes or Kentucky and Virginia!

EtherealMist · May 14th, 2006, 02:42 AM

All i'd suggest is putting all of NYC metro in one state and make it the capital. That way the city won't have to deal with Albany any more. That would be like half of NJ so you might as well give the rest of New Jersey to Philadelphia

***Xusein*** · May 14th, 2006, 02:50 AM

There is NO chance for a part of a state to secede to become it's own state...

...but if there was, make Fairfield County (Stamford and Greewich) part of NY, and give Western Mass to CT. Western Mass has more in common with Hartford than Stamford does anyway.

...or combine Mass, RI, and CT (except for Fairfield) into a super-state. But then we would be dominated by Boston, and NOBODY wants that.

Or just give all of CT to a new Downstate New York State, I like that the most. It would be cool to be known as a New Yorker than a Connecticutter (sp?)

ROCguy · May 14th, 2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EtherealMist

All i'd suggest is putting all of NYC metro in one state and make it the capital. That way the city won't have to deal with Albany any more. That would be like half of NJ so you might as well give the rest of New Jersey to Philadelphia

I don't think you understand, in the "splitting of New York State" Albany goes with NYC, the part of the state that is being the most oppressed by Albany is the one that gets to escape it, and that is DEFINITELY Western NY. Here's a map I made when this topic was brought up a while ago.

PigBoy · May 14th, 2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsonyuen

^but that was over 200 years ago!

2006 - 1863 = 143

UWMilwaukeeJay · May 14th, 2006, 04:28 AM

this hasing nothing to do with adding a state, but i believe wisconsin should have the UP of michigan!....most of the citizens up there have so many connections with N. Wis... but that will never happen michigan needs lake superior.

Bay2Bay · May 14th, 2006, 04:42 AM

The reason the U.P. is in Michigan and not Wisconsin goes back to the old Northwest Territory days. Originally, It was planned that what is now the U.P. would be in Wisconsin. What changed this is the following circumstances. Everything south of a line drawn east to west from the bottom of Lake Michigan would be in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio respectively. Ohio was first to enter the union as a state and grabbed land north of this line which is where Toledo is. In compensation Michigan (which entered the union before Wisconsin) was given the U.P.

hudkina · May 14th, 2006, 05:08 AM

Actually, Michigan already controlled the eastern portion of the UP (basically everything east of Escanaba), it only gained the remaining portion of what is considered the UP during the Toledo War. In the end Ohio got the raw end of the deal as the western portion of the UP was extremely rich in different metals.

Bay2Bay · May 14th, 2006, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudkina

In the end Ohio got the raw end of the deal as the western portion of the UP was extremely rich in different metals.

Unless you consider the fact Wisconsin got nothing.

hudkina · May 14th, 2006, 05:31 AM

There was no such thing as Wisconsin at that time. The Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836 only 5 months before the Toledo War was resolved. Prior to the creation of the Wisconsin Territory, all of Wisconsin was under the control of the Michigan Territory. So basically, Michigan took back land that was under Wisconsin control for only five months.

Bay2Bay · May 14th, 2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudkina

There was no such thing as Wisconsin at that time. The Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836 only 5 months before the Toledo War was resolved. Prior to the creation of the Wisconsin Territory, all of Wisconsin was under the control of the Michigan Territory. So basically, Michigan took back land that was under Wisconsin control for only five months.

That is true; but, I'm referring to the geographic lines for forseen future states which were outlined in the Congressional Ordinance of 1787 regarding the Northwest Territory.

TroyBoy · May 14th, 2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UWMilwaukeeJay

this hasing nothing to do with adding a state, but i believe wisconsin should have the UP of michigan!....most of the citizens up there have so many connections with N. Wis... but that will never happen michigan needs lake superior.

True, but then i demand we get Toledo, and Sandusky.

Azn_chi_boi · May 14th, 2006, 04:15 PM

Does Michigan still want Toledo from Ohio... today...?

samsonyuen · May 14th, 2006, 06:15 PM

So that's why UP is part of MI! Interesting.

May 13th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#1
edsg25 BANNED Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Chicago Posts: 9,399 Likes (Received): 0	New stars on the flag? Due to your vast experience and decision making skills, you have been selected to serve on the prestigous U.S. Committee for New States. You have been given the important task or reoganizing our nation with the addition of anywhere from three to five new states. These states are to be established to allow government to function more efficiently. The rules, established by Congress, as to the establishment of these new states includes the following: • New states must represent major metropolitan areas • Only the largest and most complex metro areas should be considered for reorganization; this recongnizes that smaller metro areas may be functioning perfect well in their existing states • Each new state needs to be a viable state, based on the existing 50 states • Serious considertion should be given to metro areas that cross state borders So, with those rules and anywhere from three to five states to create, what states do you plan to support in the committee's decision making role? What are the boundaries of the new states? Why did you choose the states you chose? Why did you not include some other possibly obvious choices. So, for example, the boundaries of the new state of Chicago are Chicago and its collar counties in Illinois, n.w. Indiana, and Kenosha Co. in Wisconsin. Or an example of why a new state of New York City is being established is because the huge New York metro area needs to function without regards to current state lines Or an example of why a new state is not being created in Houston is because this city relates too well to the state of Texas to remove it from the state. None of the examples above are necessarily good....they just have been included for the purpose of example (so Houston may very well be an excellent candidte for its own state). [B]SO, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WHICH 3 TO 5 STATES WILL WE BE ADDING?

May 13th, 2006, 04:54 PM	#2
ROCguy Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 4,052 Likes (Received): 0	This is kind of stupid, the only one I would suggest doesn't even fit into your criterea, Upstate NY should split from downstate and become it's own state. __________________ There's more to New York than New York City..... a lot more.

May 13th, 2006, 08:55 PM	#4
TroyBoy Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 793 Likes (Received): 0	You want us to do your homework for you? Perto Rico and Gaum are the only two i can think of and just to piss some people off ill include Canada, this is after all an American Forum. __________________ OMG!!! ACH NEIN!!! DER ERLKONIG KOMMET I GET HIGH OFF OF BEING HIGH

May 14th, 2006, 04:28 AM	#12
UWMilwaukeeJay Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Ruston, Louisiana Posts: 1,542 Likes (Received): 0	this hasing nothing to do with adding a state, but i believe wisconsin should have the UP of michigan!....most of the citizens up there have so many connections with N. Wis... but that will never happen michigan needs lake superior. __________________ MY SHOTS OF my campus in Ruston, La NIGHTVISION http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...08post12080008 My favorite cities: Atlanta, St Louis, Milwaukee, Toronto, New Orleans.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 13th, 2006, 07:20 PM	#3
DeMaFrost Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Too North for Lakeview, too east for Roscoe Village Posts: 479 Likes (Received): 0	My only suggestion, without much though, is North California and South California. Everyone talks about how different the two areas are, they should split the state in half. I wouldn't considering combining the small NE states. They each have so much identity and history as small states. I also agree with the Upstate/NYC suggestion.

May 13th, 2006, 09:25 PM	#5
Azn_chi_boi BANNED Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bridgeport + Chinatown, Chicago Posts: 4,269 Likes (Received): 0	Put VT, NH, MA, RI, and the parts of CT that isn't in NYC's metro into one state.

May 13th, 2006, 09:33 PM	#6
Hecago Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 486 Likes (Received): 0	Also Since Virginia and West Virginia were split because of the Civil War, they should be joined again.

May 13th, 2006, 11:51 PM	#7
samsonyuen SSLL Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace Posts: 8,534 Likes (Received): 0	^but that was over 200 years ago! They're as distinct as former same-staters like Maine and Massachusettes or Kentucky and Virginia!

May 14th, 2006, 02:42 AM	#8
EtherealMist The World Is Yours Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Boston / Northern NJ Posts: 1,206 Likes (Received): 0	All i'd suggest is putting all of NYC metro in one state and make it the capital. That way the city won't have to deal with Albany any more. That would be like half of NJ so you might as well give the rest of New Jersey to Philadelphia

May 14th, 2006, 02:50 AM	#9
*Xusein* Somali Mod Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Kingdom Come Posts: 24,545 Likes (Received): 422	There is NO chance for a part of a state to secede to become it's own state... ...but if there was, make Fairfield County (Stamford and Greewich) part of NY, and give Western Mass to CT. Western Mass has more in common with Hartford than Stamford does anyway. ...or combine Mass, RI, and CT (except for Fairfield) into a super-state. But then we would be dominated by Boston, and NOBODY wants that. Or just give all of CT to a new Downstate New York State, I like that the most. It would be cool to be known as a New Yorker than a Connecticutter (sp?)

May 14th, 2006, 04:42 AM	#13
Bay2Bay Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Oakland Posts: 596 Likes (Received): 9	The reason the U.P. is in Michigan and not Wisconsin goes back to the old Northwest Territory days. Originally, It was planned that what is now the U.P. would be in Wisconsin. What changed this is the following circumstances. Everything south of a line drawn east to west from the bottom of Lake Michigan would be in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio respectively. Ohio was first to enter the union as a state and grabbed land north of this line which is where Toledo is. In compensation Michigan (which entered the union before Wisconsin) was given the U.P.

May 14th, 2006, 05:08 AM	#14
hudkina Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 4,570 Likes (Received): 8	Actually, Michigan already controlled the eastern portion of the UP (basically everything east of Escanaba), it only gained the remaining portion of what is considered the UP during the Toledo War. In the end Ohio got the raw end of the deal as the western portion of the UP was extremely rich in different metals.

May 14th, 2006, 05:31 AM	#16
hudkina Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 4,570 Likes (Received): 8	There was no such thing as Wisconsin at that time. The Wisconsin Territory was established in 1836 only 5 months before the Toledo War was resolved. Prior to the creation of the Wisconsin Territory, all of Wisconsin was under the control of the Michigan Territory. So basically, Michigan took back land that was under Wisconsin control for only five months.

May 14th, 2006, 04:15 PM	#19
Azn_chi_boi BANNED Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bridgeport + Chinatown, Chicago Posts: 4,269 Likes (Received): 0	Does Michigan still want Toledo from Ohio... today...?

May 14th, 2006, 06:15 PM	#20
samsonyuen SSLL Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace Posts: 8,534 Likes (Received): 0	So that's why UP is part of MI! Interesting.