Best POD for a (US) State to be broken up?

[PeterEzgo]

I'm putting this here because I think by 1900 it would have been much harder.

The general idea I have is for a state already in the Union to be split into two or more successor states inside the United States. I think the best candidates for this are Texas (which I think already has a provision from when the Republic of Texas was admitted), California (North and South split) and New York (NYC and Upstate Split).

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

A slightly different Civil War could well have resulted in predominantly-Unionist East Tennessee becoming its own separate state in the same way that West Virginia did IOTL. Indeed, Civil War PODs are probably your best bet generally.

 

[GauchoBadger]

The native americans of eastern Oklahoma (at the time, the Indian Territory) once proposed the creation of a state for themselves (which would be named Sequoyah), but its creation was vetoed by president Theodore Roosevelt in 1907.
It's a post-1900 scenario, but with a specific PoD right before 1900, Sequoyah could be created.

 

[Grimbald]

There are (somewhat justified) arguments that in the Electorial College and Senate individual citizens of the states with highest populations have less voting clout than their low population counterparts. Right now the "blue" states are arguing the loudest but that will change with the next election or the one thereafter.

One solution is to allow / encourage the four largest states to split along geographic lines into 10 states (three each for California and Texas, two each for New York and Florida). This increases the individual clout of each citizen of these states and moves it to approximate national averages. While increasing the size of the senate by 12 members it leaves it about as competitive as it is now.

 

[Marc]

...no new State 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.

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Which effectively means that allowing any state to split is at least a 3 sigma outlier event - in other words, a near impossibility. However, there is one, perhaps, the exception to that: Texas was admitted to the United States by a joint resolution of the sitting Congress back then, with it (Texas) retaining the right to divide itself into 5 states.
Now that would require a massive change of attitude by Texans about their cultural identity... ain't going to happen.

I could make the argument that redrawing many state boundaries, splitting some and merging others, would be a healthy, energizing reform (look up the history of rotten boroughs in Britain to get a sense of what I am talking about), but as I said above, ain't going to happen, and not really relevant to this board.

 

[606jae]

if you delay the civil war and tensions in the run up to it for a few years, this could be easier then most would think in iirc 1859 the legisature of California PASSED a bill to split the state, but congress was to busy trying to hold the country together to take it up. this is the most likely scenerio I know of

 

[English Nationalist]

How about the creation of Vermont seeing how it was sort of spilt from New York? You could possible have West and [East] Florida continuing though I wouldn't know how that could occur, North American history isn't exactly something I am knowledgable about.

 

[Luminous]

And, of course, you always have the state of Jefferson, whose attempt to create a new state from Northern California was interrupted by the events of Pearl Harbor. That could be another PoD.

 

[Umbric Man]

I believe California was willingly going to split into NorCal and SoCal ("Colorado"), and internally legistated the okay for it and gave this okay to Congress to make official....just in time for Fort Sumter to be shot upon.

 

[Luminous]

Conceivably, you might have a situation where Michigan's upper peninsula could try for a state on their own, but they'd need a larger population as well. Perhaps there could be a scenario where the Great Lakes littoral in its entirety was owned by the US, and population growth in the region was even larger. Combine that with alt-Michigan receiving the Upper Peninsula anyway (for the same deal, in exchange for the Toledo strip), and you might create the conditions for stronger split movement.

 

[Arkenfolm]

IMO this is most likely scenario for a 51st state at this point. Maybe Florida splits in half in the near future, like some of the proposals for "South Florida" you see sometimes.

Conceivably, you might have a situation where Michigan's upper peninsula could try for a state on their own, but they'd need a larger population as well. Perhaps there could be a scenario where the Great Lakes littoral in its entirety was owned by the US, and population growth in the region was even larger. Combine that with alt-Michigan receiving the Upper Peninsula anyway (for the same deal, in exchange for the Toledo strip), and you might create the conditions for stronger split movement.

From the 1870s to the 1960s, the UP had more people than Nevada, and given Nevada's boom-bust cycles in mining in the early 20th century, you probably could convincingly argue around the turn of the century that if Nevada (where the population dropped from 47,000 to 42,000 between 1890 and 1900 census) should get to be a state, then the UP (where in that same period, the population went from 180,000 to 261,000) should too. Even more interesting, from 1870 to 1912, the US was admitting territories which had much less people than the UP, like Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona. Using OTL's Census stats, it would not officially fall into last place until the 1980 Census when Alaska passes it. From 1910 to 1930, it would be entitled to two seats in the House.

So it seems plausible you could get a state secession movement then that might actually work.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

You could have a scenario where the US has a civil war over slavery, say, or tariffs, and part of Tennessee or Virginia stayed loyal to the central government (let's call that side the Union), and is rewarded by being named a full state, say North Virginia or East Tennessee. Tennessee. Then the Union imposed government of the remainder of that state is pressured into aquiescing to the split.

Oh. Wait. That's OTL.

 

[Dave Howery]

...no new State 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.

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Which effectively means that allowing any state to split is at least a 3 sigma outlier event - in other words, a near impossibility. However, there is one, perhaps, the exception to that: Texas was admitted to the United States by a joint resolution of the sitting Congress back then, with it (Texas) retaining the right to divide itself into 5 states.
Now that would require a massive change of attitude by Texans about their cultural identity... ain't going to happen.

I could make the argument that redrawing many state boundaries, splitting some and merging others, would be a healthy, energizing reform (look up the history of rotten boroughs in Britain to get a sense of what I am talking about), but as I said above, ain't going to happen, and not really relevant to this board.

reading that, I get the idea that all it would take for a state to split itself would be approval of the state legislature and Congress... not such an impossibility. I think it would depend a lot on which state and who is in power at the time. A GOP Congress would be horrified at CA splitting up and delighted at TX doing it, and reverse all that for the Democrats. And actually, the parties might not object that much... CA splitting up the right way could give the GOP two more senators from the northern part of the state, while TX splitting up might give the Democrats two more...

 

[Urcea]

This might be a little out there, but let's say upstate rural New York types are a lot more influential and progressive in the 19th century in opposition to Tammany Hall/Gilded Era-type interests in NYC. Both sides may eventually consent to the upstate/downstate split if it gets heated enough

 

[SiddFinch1]

How about in 1789 at the start -- small states always feared big states having too much power so they break up NY and Virginia

 

[Urcea]

How about in 1789 at the start -- small states always feared big states having too much power so they break up NY and Virginia

NY and VA don't consent to the Constitution and the union shatters

 

[Evan]

How about in 1789 at the start -- small states always feared big states having too much power so they break up NY and Virginia

More than they did IOTL with Kentucky County splitting off from Virginia, and Vermont splitting off from New York? Then what @Spelf said.

 

[Marc]

reading that, I get the idea that all it would take for a state to split itself would be approval of the state legislature and Congress... not such an impossibility. I think it would depend a lot on which state and who is in power at the time. A GOP Congress would be horrified at CA splitting up and delighted at TX doing it, and reverse all that for the Democrats. And actually, the parties might not object that much... CA splitting up the right way could give the GOP two more senators from the northern part of the state, while TX splitting up might give the Democrats two more...

Well, in California, a divide nowadays would be east/west; Coastal California, largely urban, with the vast bulk of the population, is predominantly Democratic; interior California, mostly exurban out to Sierra Mountains farming/ranching rural counties is generally Republican.
Amusingly, Coastal California would still likely be the biggest State in the Union in terms of population.

Now, a really intriguing issue, one that has neither historical precedent or any note in the Constitution as to how, would be a merger of some States; based say on minuscule populations relative to the other states.

 

[Jasen777]

Could see splitting Texas in a scenario where slave power realizes a civil war would destroy them, and instead they decide to on a long term political fight, one in which they have the Court and often the president on their side (and deadlocking the Senate by various means, like splitting Texas).