The Logic Of America's State Lines

Has anyone ever noticed that there seems to be a purpose to the layout of the boundaries between American states, particularly in the northeastern part of the country? The purpose was to discourage separatism in America's early days, and the state lanes are a form of gerrymandering intended to make separatism as difficult as possible.

Here is a map link: www.maps.google.com .

The country is divided into fifty states for ease of administration. Logic tells us that each such unit would encompass one large city, with the sorrounding smaller cities, towns and, hinterland. Georgia appears as such a state, revolving around Atlanta. Indiana is another, centered around Indianapolis.

But so many state lines seem to be purposely illogical. If a state is too efficient of a geographical and economic unit, it's people might one day get the feeling that they would be better off as an independent country. There are several U.S. states that could possibly be viable small countries, or in fact were once independent countries, such as Florida, Texas, California and, Hawaii. But these are all outside the northeastern part of the country.

The nation's largest city is New York City. It is nowhere near the center of it's home state, as are Atlanta and Indianapolis. It is down in the far southeastern corner of New York State. Not only that, but it's metropolitan area extends well into two other states, New Jersey and Connecticut. If this seems utterly illogical, consider how effectively this arrangement would have discouraged separatism in any of these states.

New Jersey is a very urban state. But much of it's urban areas are extensions of two cities in other states, New York in the northeast and Philadelphia in the southwest. Once again, this would make separatism very difficult to achieve.

All of the New England states; Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and, Connecticut, are simply to small to be independent countries and would at least have to join with one another to form a separate country. The same applies to Delaware, which calls itself "The First State".

America's major experience with separatism was, of course, the Civil War of 1861-65. Looking at a map, we see that this war could just as easily been called "The Appalachian War". The natural barrier formed by the mountains and ridges of the Appalachians must have been a prominent factor in leading the Confederate states, starting with South Carolina, to secede from the union. The significance of the Appalachians as a barrier in bringing about the separation can be seen in the case of West Virginia. After the State of Virgina had joined the Confederate cause, West Virginia split from the rest of Virginia, along the line of the Appalachians, because it's people wanted to remain in the union.

The influence of the Appalachians on the war can also be seen in the direction of the initial offensive of the Confederacy. Although the Confederacy extended well west of the Appalachians, to include Texas, it's military priority was to advance northward into Pennsylvania towards Gettysburg. The obvious reason was to liberate all of the territory south and east of the Appalachians to form the new country.

I believe that America's early planners had tried to reckon with the possibility that the Appalachians could possibly bring about separatist feelings on it's opposite sides. Virginia was a large, and seemingly unwieldy, state that spanned the Appalachians before West Virginia broke away.

What about Pennsylvania? It spans the Appalachians both from north to south, and from east to west. There is a mountainous barrier between the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that must have been difficult to cross in the early days of the country. But this was intended to help neutralize the Appalachians as a natural barrier in possibly bringing about separatism.

New York State is apparently one of the most illogical geopolitical entities in existence. But that is the whole point. The Adirondack Mountains and the wide Hudson Valley, which could definitely lead the people on opposite sides to feel as if maybe they should be separate countries, are both neutralized as such barriers by being contained within one state.

This pattern is not to be seen in western states. As the country expanded westward, it clearly gained confidence that such deterrence of separatism was no longer necessary. A landlocked state is much less viable as an independent country. Even so we see that the great barrier of the west, the Rocky Mountains, are not permitted to serve as a barrier between states. Colorado, for example, spans the Rockies in a way similar to that of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania.

The boundaries between Canadian provinces do not seem to incorporate any deterrence to separatism at all. If Quebec was in America, it would surely have been gerrymandered into making separatism very unlikely.