- Location
- NYC (né Falkirk)
- Pronouns
- he/him
DISCLAIMER: No adding addition territory to the United States, that's cheating and not the purpose of the question.
Looking at the number of states on the West Coast of the continental US compared with the East its very lopsided with only 3 states on the West Coast compared to the 14 of the East Coast. There are many reasons why the East Coast might inevitably wind up with more states than the West Coast, due to history and geography, but did it have to be so lopsided?
The states on the East Coast are smaller geographically, indeed of the 10 smallest US states 8 of them are on the Atlantic Ocean (those 8 are from smallest to largest: Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland). Of the 3 largest states on the East Coast 1 of them, New York, only connects to the Atlantic along a relatively small sliver of coastline compared with it's total borders. In contrast, the West Coast states are the third (California), ninth (Oregon), and eighteenth (Washington) largest overall. There is no single East Coast state bigger than any one West Coast state.
The East Coast states were also colonised by Europeans over a far longer length of time before even the existence of the United States. Excluding Florida and Vermont, the remaining 12 represent all but one of the original Thirteen Colonies that revolted against UK rule.
The West Coast states were only defined as part of the United States following treaty with the UK (in the case of modern day Oregon and Washington) and war with Mexico (in the case of California) in the 1840s. California was hastily admitted as the then largest US state with its present borders in 1853 as part of a compromise to stave off sectional conflict over slavery, it delayed it by a few years. Oregon was admitted in 1859 as part of another compromise with slavers, opening up the southwestern territories to slavery. Washington was finally admitted in 1889, under borders set by Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1889.
What if there had been more states carved out of either the Oregon Country split at the 49th parallel with the UK or the former Alta California taken from Mexico? So that instead of the East Coast having just under 5 times as many states as the West Coast the ratio is 2:1 or better?
Partition of the State of California has been discussed on and off at varying levels of interest and seriousness since the 1850s. Slavers wanted the Mexican session split along the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Two attempts were made to trisect (in 1855) or bisect (in 1859) the state due to difficulties in communication and transportation for one state government over so large a territory as well as cultural differences between Northern and Southern California. The 1859 attempt, known as the Pico Act, actually got as far as being submitted to the federal government who did nothing in the midst of leopards eating their face.
There were further attempts in the 20th century to divide California into 2 or 3 states, sometimes in conjunction with another state, but none got very far. The 21st century has seen many proposals for how to divide California, with different motivations and ranging in number from 2 to 6 states, though again none have progressed very far.
Attempts to divide Oregon and Washington are far fewer. Perhaps the most famous for the former being the State of Jefferson, proposed in 1941 and being formed from the secession of the southeastearnmost counties or Oregon and the northernmost counties of California. The movement gained media attention when armed men stopped traffic along the highway in November that year and handed out proclamations of independence. Only half serious (the militia threatened to secede "every Thursday" until their demands were met) the notion was quickly forgotten when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in December. Most proposals to split Washington do so along a north-south axis rather than an east-west one and would not create any new coastal states.
Could one or more of these proposals have come to pass? Or would California being trisected into North, South and Central at any point remove the need for further partition/secession as issues around transportation and governance would have been adequately dealt with by creating state governments overseeing less land and people?
Looking at the number of states on the West Coast of the continental US compared with the East its very lopsided with only 3 states on the West Coast compared to the 14 of the East Coast. There are many reasons why the East Coast might inevitably wind up with more states than the West Coast, due to history and geography, but did it have to be so lopsided?
The states on the East Coast are smaller geographically, indeed of the 10 smallest US states 8 of them are on the Atlantic Ocean (those 8 are from smallest to largest: Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland). Of the 3 largest states on the East Coast 1 of them, New York, only connects to the Atlantic along a relatively small sliver of coastline compared with it's total borders. In contrast, the West Coast states are the third (California), ninth (Oregon), and eighteenth (Washington) largest overall. There is no single East Coast state bigger than any one West Coast state.
The East Coast states were also colonised by Europeans over a far longer length of time before even the existence of the United States. Excluding Florida and Vermont, the remaining 12 represent all but one of the original Thirteen Colonies that revolted against UK rule.
The West Coast states were only defined as part of the United States following treaty with the UK (in the case of modern day Oregon and Washington) and war with Mexico (in the case of California) in the 1840s. California was hastily admitted as the then largest US state with its present borders in 1853 as part of a compromise to stave off sectional conflict over slavery, it delayed it by a few years. Oregon was admitted in 1859 as part of another compromise with slavers, opening up the southwestern territories to slavery. Washington was finally admitted in 1889, under borders set by Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1889.
What if there had been more states carved out of either the Oregon Country split at the 49th parallel with the UK or the former Alta California taken from Mexico? So that instead of the East Coast having just under 5 times as many states as the West Coast the ratio is 2:1 or better?
Partition of the State of California has been discussed on and off at varying levels of interest and seriousness since the 1850s. Slavers wanted the Mexican session split along the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Two attempts were made to trisect (in 1855) or bisect (in 1859) the state due to difficulties in communication and transportation for one state government over so large a territory as well as cultural differences between Northern and Southern California. The 1859 attempt, known as the Pico Act, actually got as far as being submitted to the federal government who did nothing in the midst of leopards eating their face.
There were further attempts in the 20th century to divide California into 2 or 3 states, sometimes in conjunction with another state, but none got very far. The 21st century has seen many proposals for how to divide California, with different motivations and ranging in number from 2 to 6 states, though again none have progressed very far.
Attempts to divide Oregon and Washington are far fewer. Perhaps the most famous for the former being the State of Jefferson, proposed in 1941 and being formed from the secession of the southeastearnmost counties or Oregon and the northernmost counties of California. The movement gained media attention when armed men stopped traffic along the highway in November that year and handed out proclamations of independence. Only half serious (the militia threatened to secede "every Thursday" until their demands were met) the notion was quickly forgotten when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in December. Most proposals to split Washington do so along a north-south axis rather than an east-west one and would not create any new coastal states.
Could one or more of these proposals have come to pass? Or would California being trisected into North, South and Central at any point remove the need for further partition/secession as issues around transportation and governance would have been adequately dealt with by creating state governments overseeing less land and people?