You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
If George Etzel Pearcy had his way, Lynyrd Skynyrd's famous song would have been called "Sweet Home Talladego." In 1973, the California State University geography professor suggested that the U.S. should redraw its antiquated state boundaries and narrow the overall number of states to a mere thirty-eight. Pearcy's proposed state lines were drawn in less-populated areas, isolating large cities and reducing their number within each state. He argued that if there were fewer cities vying for a state's tax dollars, more money would be available for projects that would benefit all citizens. Because the current states were being chopped up beyond recognition, part of his plan included renaming the new states by referencing natural geologic features or the region's cultural history. While he did have a rather staunch support network—economists, geographers, and even a few politicians argued that Pearcy's plan might be crazy enough to work—the proposal was defeated in Washington, D.C. Imagine all the work that would have to be done to enact Pearcy's plan: re-surveying the land, setting up new voter districts, new taxation infrastructure—basically starting the whole country over. It's easy to see why the government balked.
Now, even though it makes perfect sense why the government wouldn't do this, let's say it does. Which state names would people complain about, and perhaps what would be the preferred state names?
I don't get why they had to change Hawaii's name, Cascadia sounds better than "Cascade", and Minneapolis isn't exactly close to Lake Superior. Seward would definitely be a barren state.
What else do you think? Would people be pissed off?