In the 1970s, geography professor C. Etzel Pearcy proposed redrawing the borders of the US states, reducing them from 50 to 38. Each new state’s name was chosen to represent a physical of cultural aspect of each new territory. This realignment was supposed to be more ‘organic’ and more logical, as major population centres such as Kansas City would no longer be located in two different states. Needless to say, the idea never left the drawing board.
Found on this page of the South Dakota Magazine.
[...] Strange Maps Strange Maps ist ein interessanter neuer Blog, der sich vor allem kartographischen Kuriosa widmet, zum Beispiel einer Karte, die eine Restrukturierung der USA von 50 zu 38 Staaten vorsieht, oder diesen Vorschlägen zu einer Neuorganisation Belgiens. (Via.) [...]
Pingback by kartentisch » Weitere Links: Rechnitz, Strange Maps, Trudaine — October 20, 2006 @
There was a proposed flag to go with the new map as well (as the 50-star flag would no loger be relevant). It was published in Time Magazine. It had an off-center tilted 5-pointed star with multiple outlines in bold colors.
Comment by Gaius Obvious — November 7, 2006 @
People’s Almanac also published a sixteen-state U.S.A. (after page 922) by Dr. Stanley Brunn of Michigan State. This map actually makes more sense to me, as it appears to represent the largest areas that are culturally and economically contiguous:
Angelina: Extends from L.A. to Albaquerque to Brownsville.
Pacifica: San Francisco, Reno, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii
Rocky: The Rockies north of Angelina and west of the Plains states:
North Plains: Northern Nebraska to Eastern Montana to Northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan
Central Plains: Centered on K.C.
South Plains: Oklahoma & Northeast Texas, centering on Dallas
Gulf Coast: Houston to Pensacola
North Heartland: Chicago-Indianapolis-Des Moinses
Southern Heartland: St. Louis-Louisville-Memphis
Industry: Detroit-Ohio-Wheeling-Pittsburg-Buffalo
Carolina: North Carolina, Norfolk, Charlottesburg, Charleston?
New South: Atlanta & everything else in the Confederacy north of
Tropicana: Florida south of Cape Canaveral + P.R. and V.I.
Mid-Atlantica: MD, N. Va., eastern W. Va., Delaware, Atlantic City, Central PA
Empire: South-central New York to Lake Ontario, CT, RI, Trenton, Berkshires
Yankee: Boston, northern NY, VT, NH, Maine.
The “38″ cuts across cultural lines: south Georgia doesn’t have much to do with Miami, New Orleans and Houston should be in the same state, There is no need to split Illinois up into four units, eastern Missouri feels like northern Arkansas, and so on. (One useful rule: if you are likely to commute by car across a state line, it shouldn’t be there.)
Comment by Solomon2 — November 9, 2006 @
If I had unlimited computing power, access to data, and ambition, I’d like to develop The Most Efficient Telephone Areas Map by starting with the smallest available units and clumping them according to which ones talk to each other most often. That would be one way to find the genuine cultural-economic regions.
But I see a disadvantage to “logical” state boundaries: they increase the likelihood that all of the territory best suited to your project is under the same bad regulatory regime, and in other words increase the cost of voting with one’s feet.
Comment by Anton Sherwood — November 19, 2006 @
At least this map is more useful in the analysis of “cultural influence” back a few decades ago. For instance, rural town attitudes of most of Arkansas seems to similar to that of West Tennessee, but different from East Tennessee. Many states have different government expectations, different higher education expectations, different unique subcultures, and a general mismatch of cultural norms which this map predicts would occur.
I know from experience that West Tennesseans and Central-East Tennesseans rarely see eye-to-eye in political matters and the same with North and South Georgians. This map predicts this kind of political tensions to a tee.
But redividing our country based off these vague cultural boundaries makes America, in my opinion, a less interesting place. The current state borders force compromise more often than not and such political tension and the ease of “voting with your feet” can create interesting governing solutions (and interesting governing failures) that normally would not occur.
Comment by Robert Steinbach — November 22, 2006 @
[...] April 1st, 2007 in First Nation, Oregon, The Future Not the map I’ve been looking for, but close. The time frame is right: In the 1970s, geography professor C. Etzel Pearcy proposed redrawing the [...]
Pingback by Looking for the map... « Homeless on the High Desert — April 2, 2007 @
Since Hawaii’s borders don’t change, why does it have to get a new name?
Comment by jm — July 10, 2007 @
@Solomon2
See also the Common Census http://commoncensus.org/maps.php for some general idea/raw data of how to do that. Note though, that as shown, it has even more than 50 regions.
Comment by belg4mit — July 30, 2007 @
There is a lot of parallel between this map and a map of “media zones,” i. e. which TV we watch and which sports teams we follow.
Comment by Howard Ahmanson — September 13, 2007 @
There is absolutely no way Americans would accept a change as drastic as redrawing the borders and changing the names of the states that make up the U.S. It would require far too much work and effort.
Comment by trademark registration — December 19, 2007 @
I haven’t been to the USA, but I would have thought it unlikely that the east had more geographical features than the west. Was it therefore a failure to get out of the existing mindset that caused the eastern “states” still to be smaller than those out west. If you were going to break up Plymouth, Hudson, Susquehanna then surely there are enough features to have states like “Monument” or “Mojave”.
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2008 @
Comment above: I had the same thought, but it may be more effected by population distribution–in that case, not unlike in the original divisions.
Comment by Scott — March 1, 2008 @
TYHIS WAS THE WORST SITE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111I HATED IT IT IS SO SUCKY
Comment by amy — March 5, 2008 @
these lines don’t make any sense, why break up Illinois like that?
Comment by aprilhoffman — May 6, 2008 @
@14: Well, it seems to yield a state that surrounds Lake Michigan’s southern shore and avoid border over rivers (which often flow through larger agglomerations).
Most of the borders really seem arbitrary, though - the St. Louis area is still divided in three parts for example and most of the states have no natural center/would still be quite unimportant..
Comment by Chieron — July 9, 2008 @
Don’t get why they needed to change the names for so many territories.
Comment by Sergiu — July 21, 2008 @
Why would you split Alaska into two states? That doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by Robin — August 2, 2008 @