State of Jefferson? Jefferson has nothing to do with California.Alta California has already been divided. California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming were parts of the Mexican Departament of The
Californias.''California was also an independent republic,
but for only three weeks in the summer of 1846.'' This statement is
false.The so called "California Republic" was never an
independent nation. The Bear Flaggers were just a bunch of opportunistic people,
which did not constitute a functional government, neither do they have
territorial control outside Sonoma nor they represented the majority of
Californians. Claiming to take possession of something that was not theirs to
begin with.The ultimate goal of the Bear Flaggers was the annexation
of the Alta California to the United States, which was finally accomplished in
1849.The routine goes like this: a small band of discontent English
Speaking immigrants revolt, declare independence, and the whole of CA get
annexed (stolen) by U.S. Apparently, this routine worked so well in TX and West
FL that they had an encore performance in CA.
Re dave4197No Called cornia doesn't merit having 12 Senators.
What is merits is having as many representatives as it has.Every
time there is a vote on the second amendment California senators vote the wrong
way. Therefore people should not support California becoming more states than
it already is. What California could do to solve its governance problem is
transfer power to its counties. This way mismanagement if California in one
area would remain localized.
It will never happen. The masses of people in the big cities like having the
outlying colonies under their control. There's a chance some
of these new States would be more Conservative, and may even throw their
electoral votes to a Republican some day (like they used to in the past) and
that would be unthinkable to Democrats who are used to getting ALL of
California's electoral votes now (even though the majority in many
communities OUTSIDE the big cities are very Conservative).It will
just never happen for many reasons. One is the possibility of more
Republican Senators coming out of the new more Conservative States (giving
control of the Senate to Republicans). Currently CA's Senators are
guaranteed to be Democrat, (no matter who runs). And their 55 seats in the
house being divided up and diluting their representation in the House... that
will NEVER fly...
3 states would make more sense, North, Central and Southern California. Texas
should be two states, Texas and West Texas.
It would make California far more powerful legislatively, with 12 senators
instead of 2.
California by population deserves 12 senators. But I diverge. I am
a supporter of dividing California into better geographic and demographic
regions. Give the eastern slope of the Sierras to Nevada. Make LA and San
Diego into a state from the top of the grapevine down to the ocean. With
difficulty make the SF Bay Area and its bedroom communities into one state.
Make the agricultural Central Valley into one or two states. Unsure what to do
with the north coast, the central coast (one road in one road out) and the
northeast wastelands er high desert.But Draper's plan deserves
debate, I'll vote against his simpleton lines, at least this can start a
discussion.In order to get representative gov't in the country
we need to do 2 things. Term limits (2 terms) for legislators in order to get
more open minds involved. Make the US Senate representative, we're no
longer the 13 colonies against everyone else, and require the Senate to act - I
know that's a stretch.
That may make California more governor, but the US really doesn't need 12
Make the state into 6 counties and transfer most state power and taxing
authority to these 6 counties.Not too long ago the people of
California voted to spend billions of dollars on a train system, this at a time
when it wasn't certain they were going to have even enough money to run
their schoolsIf the state were subdivided like this, mismanagement
in one area wouldn't spill over into the entire state. Excellence in one
area would make that area shine and would serve as an example for the rest of
I don't mind if it is broken up, but the way in which it is being broken up
and the person behind it is quite revealing. This is not about making
California more governable. This is about separating classes of people behind
different state borders. Some people support that ideal, but ultimately, it will
drastically weaken the country as a whole if this becomes an accepted practice
among all of the states.
The proposal to break up Texas and California is a not-too-subtle attempt to
stack the Senate with more Republicans. Since Senate seats can't be
gerrymandered, this is the only way to stack the odds there in favor of the
Republicans. They've done it quite successfully in the House, where last
election there were 1 million more votes for Democrats than Republicans, but
still the House is dominated by Republicans. Now they want to do it to the
Senate as well.
I agree with Chuck E. Racer. It would bring government closer to the people.
CA has 38 million people and a GNP alone that would make it #8 in the world if
it were a country. Yet, it's government seems to floundering. Whether
some of the states are dominated by the GOP or Dems make no difference,
I've actually seen the line of where the divides would be and it actually
"Six Californias and five Texases may be too many for the rest of the
country."============You can say that again. Just think
of having 59 stars on the flag!? Just too complicated!
Local autonomy is vital to avoiding tyranny, allowing for differing community
standards and experimentation. I'm all for working to adjust our
arbitrarily-designed state lines (full of surveyors' mistakes) in favor of
boundaries that better reflect geopolitical divisions.Breaking
California in two just makes good sense.See the Pearcy 38-state map
for an interesting discussion starter. Though there are of course many
particulars where I disagree with it, it's a good effort.But
six Californias is plainly excessive and would cheat everyone else out of proper
representation in the Senate. If Californians think their state government is
unworkable and unresponsive and that splitting into six is the only way to
overcome this, they should consider rewriting their state Constitution to create
administrative divisions with considerable amounts of autonomy; their Federal
status actually wouldn't have to change one bit.
Absolutely! What is surprising is that there are a million people from
California that can think on their own enough to even consider it! However, it
isn't going to happen. If the powers that be actually thought it would
make a difference, they wouldn't let it happen! Just like voting. If
Washington thought it would make a difference to let people vote, they
wouldn't allow it!
Thomas Jefferson said, "The way to have good and safe government is not
trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone
exactly the functions in which he is competent ... [more] ... It is by dividing
and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its
subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by
himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all
will be done for the best."Dividing California and Texas would
be very good for the country and especially those states. It would bring the
government closer to the people. It would involve more people in their own
governance. It would tend to promote self government by this means. We are a
stronger nation because we are 50 states rather than one. Pushing the
governance down to the people builds the people.
Both California and Texas are too big and too corrupt because of the
concentration of power. Diffusing the concentration of power by dividing these
states makes sense to me. But not six California's. Maybe two Californias
(Northern and Southern, similar to North and South Dakota, and North and South
Carolina), and maybe three or four Texases.
Nothing's going to happen because any proposal runs into the politics of
what the senator breakdown would be. If California breaking up like this leads
to 6 Democratic and 6 Republican senators then democrats would say no. If it
would lead to 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans instead of the current 2-0 then
Republicans would say no since it makes their seat deficit 2 higher.
Time for my favorite quote: "We don't have too much government, We
have too many governments. More governments provide for more criminal
wrongdoing, and nobody but the wrongdoers would deny that. Businessmen want to control their own government and to that end every little
want-to-be king wants his own government so that he can decide who gets to be
rich. Ideally there should be only one government, so that the people could
have only one government to watch over and control, and not have their attention
split a dozen ways with no one actually responsible for doing the people's
will.Seems like the whole reason for civilization is to put the
Jungle behind us. Multiple governments takes us back to the survival of the
"Six Californias and five Texases may be too many for the rest of the
country. But it’s too soon to discount the merit in Draper’s
grass-roots effort to make this state here a bit more manageable.""...a bit more manageable" means "keep rich Californians from
having to pay for social services on behalf of poor Californians." I can
see Mr. Clark why this appeals to you.
Whats next? Admitting Puerto Rico into the Union? Breaking Texas into 4?
Combining CT & RI?
California should be broken up. As it is now, the vast majority of the state
is being suppressed and subverted by Los Angeles. This has led to the left-wing
dominating politics of the state in a way that is not reflective of true
No, i disagree with the article. It's not too late to punt on this idea.
It's embarrassing that it has even made it this far.Do
Californians really want to pay for 5 new state capitols? Do they really want to
deal with 5 new state legislatures? Do they really want 5 different state laws?
What about state roads? How about the poorer states that would be created? Do Americans want to see essentially 10 more senators added to the
Congress? Do we really want states to be divided so that the uber rich who
inherited their wealth (like the brainchild behind this movement) buy off
states? I don't like this one bit. Keep your mitts off
The almost total lack or the initiative to creatively name any proposed new
'California' hints at how silly this idea is. And what a mess would
it open up in our age of political divide and congressional districts so
Jerrymandered as to look like tetris pieces or inkblots. I think we'd best
leave things be.
I couldn't care less what happens to California--the most diseased state in
the country, which has infected almost all western states with its horrors.
But, being a cynical type, I do wonder how the lines for the six states were
drawn up (think "Gerrymander"). Would Silicon Valley be comprised of
uber-weatlthy types while Central Valley end up a locus of poverty like
Appalachia? I strongly suspect (remember: this IS California we're talking
about) that the idea of "making the state more governable"--which, God
knows, it could stand--is just a guise under which the priviliged would slough
off large numbers of minorities, less privileged or in some other way "less
"It may simply be an accident" that Mr. Clark forgot a 3rd
"continental U.S." "super-sized" state called Montana. That
continental state has 147,000 square miles, but only slightly over one million
population.That Montana oversight does not really impact the
discussion on the merits of "Six Californias". IF I remember correctly,
Utah could not give away Wendover to Nevada a few years ago. It seemed that
everyone in Utah and Nevada was either for it or did not care. No
matter how much everyone wants some change in borders and how much sense it may
make, the United State Congress does not want to open up a Pandora's box of
endless border changes.