Pearcy’s 38 States

In the 1970s, geography professor C. Etzel Pearcy proposed reconfiguring the United States into 38 states that were, in his view, more physically and culturally coherent. This page has the story — and, more importantly for our purposes, the map.

When Pearcy realigned the U.S., he gave high priority to population density, location of cities, lines of transportation, land relief, and size and shape of individual States. … Each major city which fell into the “straddling” category is neatly tucked within the boundaries of a new State. Pearcy tried to place a major metropolitan area in the center of each State. St. Louis is in the center of the State of Osage, Chicago is centered in the State of Dearborn.

Via Things Magazine; thanks also to Owen.

Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 at 4:23 PM
Categories: Miscellany

« Previous Entry | January 2005 | Next Entry »

Comments

If you liked that… this looks like a slightly more farfetched design that has a more multinational approach. (Canadian and Mexican territories are included e.g. Hermosillo in the same division as Pheonix).

http://www.rev.net/~aloe/region/seatosea.html

Stephen Crook | 02/01/2005 at 6:13 PM | #

Believe it or not, I remember this very vividly. I was in junior high in the early-mid 1970’s when this article came out. I also remember chuckling about it as I read it, thinking this would NEVER become a reality. But now, being that I live in NYC and constantly feel shafted by grabby upstaters taking the lion’s share of state funds (thanks, Gov. Potato-Head Pataki), a change might be just what the doctor ordered—well, that or secession….

Terri | 02/02/2005 at 9:23 AM | #

Pearcy’s project is a fascinating idea for geography nerds like me to contemplate while others are out enjoying their active social lives. However, if his state reorganization ever was implemented it would mean that the United States of America, as created by the vision our founding fathers, was gone. This country is a federation, a banding together of several (in this case 50) sovereign states for mutual benefit. The federal government does not have constitutional authority to create, abolish, or alter state boundaries. States form from a democratically organized people in a territory applying for statehood and the privileges thereof. States are ADMITTED into the Union, not CREATED by it, and it should stay that way. A federal reorganization of States would mean that the “States” -the word itself implying a degree of sovereignty- would be in effect degraded to administrative districts of an omnipotent central government. Now we wouldn’t want the federal government with any more power than has already, would we? It’s un-American to be comfortable with that idea.

Mike | 02/02/2005 at 11:38 PM | #

Well, Mike, you’re right, that’d be no good. But it wouldn’t happen that way. If it were to happen it would have to be by the assent of each individual state.

See the constitution, article 4, section 3

“New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

So every single state would have to consent, or at least every state that were involved in the scheme.

Which is why it’s REALLY wild.

Dom | 02/25/2005 at 2:47 AM | #

It will never work… but it’s a good idea.

Mike | 03/16/2005 at 1:21 PM | #

This entry is more than 30 days old and is closed to new comments.

Comments on all entries are available via RSS.