In 1973, American geographer George Etzel Pearcy proposed a bold reconfiguration of the United States’ political landscape. Pearcy’s plan aimed to reduce the number of states from 50 to 38. The boundaries would be redrawn to show cultural and economic connections more accurately. This proposal sparked discussions about the practicality and implications of such a transformation.
Historical Context
George Etzel Pearcy was born on May 2, 1905, in Greencastle, Indiana. He was a distinguished geographer with a career spanning academia and government service. Pearcy earned his Ph.D. from Clark University in 1940. He held positions at the University of Alabama, Trans World Airlines, and the United States Department of State. From 1965 to 1969, he chaired the United States Board on Geographic Names. In 1969, Pearcy joined California State University, Los Angeles, where he taught until his retirement in 1973. It was during this period that he introduced his proposal for a 38-state United
Pearcy’s Proposal: A Thirty-Eight State U.S.A.
Pearcy’s plan, detailed in his publication “A Thirty-Eight State U.S.A.,” suggested redrawing state boundaries to create regions that better aligned with contemporary cultural and economic realities. He argued that many existing state lines were established during periods of sparse population. These lines were based on natural features or arbitrary coordinates. As urban areas expanded and populations became more mobile, these historical boundaries often led to administrative inefficiencies and economic disparities.
Criteria for Redrawing Boundaries
In redefining state lines, Pearcy considered several factors:
- Population Density: Aiming to balance populations across states to guarantee fair representation and resource distribution.
- Metropolitan Areas: Ensuring major cities were centrally located within a single state to streamline governance and infrastructure development.
- Transportation Networks: Aligning state boundaries with existing transportation corridors to aid economic integration.
- Geographical Features: Utilizing natural landmarks in less populated regions to define boundaries, while avoiding dense settlements in more populated areas.
For instance, Pearcy’s proposal placed cities like St. Louis and Chicago at the centers of new states named “Osage” and “Dearborn,” respectively. This approach aimed to remove the challenges posed by metropolitan areas that spanned multiple states. These challenges included jurisdictional disputes and fragmented economic policies.
Renaming the States
Along with redrawing boundaries, Pearcy proposed renaming the new states to reflect regional cultural and historical identities. The names were selected through surveys conducted among geography students, emphasizing local heritage and geographical features. For example, California was divided into “El Dorado” and “San Gabriel,” while Texas was split into “Alamo” and “Shawnee.”
Pearcy’s Intended Benefits
Pearcy believed that his reorganization would tackle several issues:
- Economic Efficiency: By reducing the number of major cities, the competition for state resources would decrease. As a result, funds can be allocated more effectively to help all residents.
- Improved Governance: States with more cohesive cultural and economic identities would aid more responsive and representative governance.
- Infrastructure Development: Unified metropolitan areas within single states lead to better-coordinated infrastructure projects. These projects include transportation systems and public services.
Controversy and Criticism
Despite support from some economists, geographers, and politicians who saw merit in Pearcy’s ideas, the proposal faced significant opposition. It was ultimately dismissed in Washington, D.C. Critics highlighted several concerns:
- Logistical Challenges: Implementing the plan would need extensive efforts. This includes land resurveying, establishing new governmental and taxation structures, and redefining political districts. The complexity and cost of such an undertaking were deemed prohibitive.
- Cultural Resistance: Many Americans held strong attachments to their state’s historical identities and boundaries. The prospect of renaming and redefining states met with public resistance, as it threatened long-standing cultural and regional affiliations.
- Political Implications: Redrawing state lines disrupts existing political balances, affecting representation in Congress and the Electoral College. This potential shift in political power dynamics led to further reluctance among lawmakers to pursue the proposal.
The combination of these factors contributed to the plan’s rejection, as the challenges outweighed the perceived benefits.
Pearcy’s Legacy and Modern Perspectives
While Pearcy’s proposal was never realized, it has continued to intrigue scholars and enthusiasts of geography and political science. The map serves as a thought experiment, prompting discussions about how political boundaries influence economic development, governance, and cultural identity.
In recent years, debates over state boundaries have resurfaced. Movements advocating for the division of states like California into smaller entities cite reasons similar to Pearcy’s. They mention governance challenges and economic disparities. These contemporary discussions underscore the enduring relevance of questions about optimal state sizes and configurations.
Pearcy’s work invites ongoing reflection. It considers how historical boundaries impact modern societal structures. It questions whether revisiting these divisions can solve current challenges. Implementing such proposals is complex. Yet, they encourage a critical examination of the relationship between geography and governance in the United States.