Why are U.S. states so DRASTICALLY different in size comparisons?
In:
Here is roughly how it went:
*1776*: 13 colonies that had developed organically and were in existence at the start of the ultimately become 15 states. N & S Carlina gave up portions of themselves to form KY and TN so the slave states could have more representation in Congress.
*1803*: The Federal govt sets out to form its first ‘new’ state, from scratch. This state would be as square as possible(accounting for natural water boundaries, etc.) and was to be a template in term of size for all subsequent states…Ohio. So the plan was west of the Mississippi there just be Ohio after Ohio after Ohio….
*1804*: The settlers living in the areas yet to apply for statehood were like. No. We’ll decide our boundaries. We want as much land as possible. Human settlements are too spread out in the central US and Ohio sized state would dilute fed govt representation. And the fed govt conceded and let them have a hodge-podge arrangement of sizes as they needed to attract people to these unsettled territories.
The big exception was California. When they applied for statehood the Fed govt was like, “No. You’re too big. You can’t have all that land and kickass costal goodness for yourselves. You need to be like 3 states.” California replied, “If you dont, well just form our own country”. The US fed govt realized that California totally could be it’s own country so they admitted them as the behemoth state as they are today.
[deleted]
Because the U.S. was never a big old lump of a country that had to divided up all at once. It’s the result of many previously existing countries, territories, colonies, and settlements. It happened over a couple hundred years of war, genocide, treaties and negotiations. Some geographical features also have significance in drawing the lines.
You might want to r/askhistorians or r/askanamerican about this, or you can look up *How the States Got Their Shapes*.
Latest Answers