Wolfgang,
Yes, this kind of talk from a foreigner (particularly a European) has the
potential to rub patriotic Americans the wrong way, but I accept your question
in the honest academic way that you have asked it. I will attempt to respond
similarly.
Remember that the USA is a union of sovereign states, the founding ones of which
pre-existed the union. The subsequently admitted states have formed their own
sovereign governments on equal constitutional footing with the original states.
Therefore, it is not for the federal government to decide whether to amalgamate
states into a smaller number. Any such proposal would have to originate with
pairs or small groups of states themselves. (Our federal Constitution does
allow two or more states to merge with the consent of the Congress.)
That is extremely unlikely. The main reason is that Americans traditionally
mistrust big government. The division of governmental authority among various
levels helps keep it under control. Some states do things one way, while others
do them other ways. Some states have high taxes, and some have low taxes. Some
states tax certain things, while other states tax other things. Laws on many
matters vary widely from state to state. This is why we have different
states--so that each can do the will of its own people. This allows for greater
democracy. Americans resent meddling by other states almost as much as they do
foreign meddling. (The current flap between New Jersey and Delaware is a case
in point.)
Yes, many states lack intrastate homogeneity. A great many of our states are
culturally, economically, and politically bi-polar. (All Southern states are
bi-polar; none more so than mine. Its northern and southern regions have so
little in common that, until just a few years ago, it was not even possible to
drive between them on a four-lane road without passing through either Jackson,
Mississippi, or Houston, Texas.) The lack of intrastate homogeneity is often
useful. It keeps government under control. The more paralyzed a government,
the freer its people!
Just because a boundary is straight does not mean that it is more arbitrary than
one that wanders. Many of our western state boundaries are indeed artificially
straight, but they were drawn during territorial times antecedent to significant
settlement. The states grew to political maturity within them. None of them
arbitrarily split urban areas when drawn. On the contrary, cities grew up along
boundaries because of the unique commercial opportunities at such places. The
boundary through what is now Texarkana originated as an international boundary
between the USA and Spain, then, Mexico, then the Republic of Texas.
In another message, you wrote:
> Still you live in ONE country, how ever large it is, you (still) speak one
> language, and your country is "only" 230 years old and progress-oriented. By
> nature your country is a cultural mix, much different from Germany where we
> believe we have stronger ethnic / dialect diversities.
It is only your distant point of view that leads you to see Americans as less
internally diverse than Germans. I sometimes hear Americans on television whose
regional accents/dialects I can barely understand. They might have the same
problem with some from my region. It is not just accents, though. This country
is tremendously diverse in its regional attitudes, beliefs, and ways of
thinking. Some of these differences are influenced by physical geography
(landscapes, climates, resources), but many result from deeply rooted religious,
social, cultural, and philosophical differences. It is my theory that such
differences are growing, rather than shrinking, with the passage of time. Thank
God that we have different states! We could not function as a united America
otherwise.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Schaub" <Wolfgang.Schaub@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] The greater picture
>
> After looking too much towards the past I felt I should look a bit into the
> future now.
>
> Following your discussions on intra-U.S. boundaries I begin to wonder if
> there is, in the U.S., anybody who ever has estimated the waste of $ caused
> by maintaining some 50 states. Three reasons:
>
> 1) The relative size of some states is drastically divergent (Rhode Island
> vs. Texas and California)
>
> 2) There is often little intra-state homogeneity (New Jersey, for example,
> split between an industrial, NY-City-oriented half and woodland towards DE
> and PA; similar situation with N.Y. State)
>
> 3) The boundaries of many states seem drawn too straight to make sense
> (cities are sometimes split, like Texarkana, and others).
>
> I know there is a historical reason for all that, but is this situation not
> contrary to the otherwise so "forward-looking" America? A reform could help
> saving billions of dollars that could be used for a better purpose than
> nurturing small-size or disparate governmental administrations. Or: Is there
> a difference, geographically, ethnically, culturally or otherwise that
> supports a reason for North AND South Dakota?
>
> (I may even offer a recipe: Amalgamate the 50 into 6 new states, NE, SE,
> mid-S, mid-N, SW, and NW)
>
> I know this sort of discussion, carried in by a foreigner, is not to the
> liking of patriotic Americans. And precisely for that reasons I bring this
> up. Give me a reasonable answer please, forward-looking.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>