Agreed. The Rio Grande, like many rivers, works better as a road than as a border... Now, the Continental Divide to the west of the Rio Grande on the other hand...
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
If I'm remembering correctly it was for political reasons.
Option 1 was rejected because it would have given Manitoba and the new province too much political power in comparison to Ontario and Quebec.
Option 2 was rejected because it would have given the new province, Buffalo, too much political power.
Options 3 & 4 were partisan divisions which would create provinces which heavily favoured the Liberal or Conservative parties.
Read more here: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia...-the-politics-of-provincehood-in-1905-feature
I think the first proposal giving Manitoba and Alberta/Buffalo more political power would have been a good thing. It would give Ontario and Quebec less hegemony over all of Canada
Edit: Especially reading that splitting it into Alberta and Saskatchewan in the first place was to limit the power of the Conservative Party. That's pretty corrupt.
Edit: Especially reading that splitting it into Alberta and Saskatchewan in the first place was to limit the power of the Conservative Party. That's pretty corrupt.
Last edited:
In the long run, probably a good thing. When you're the one who has to sign your potential opposition into existence, you're naturally opposed.
Re-reading the article I posted, it could have happened if the Conservatives had won the 1904 Federal Election, as in 1902 they supported the creation of the Province of Buffalo.
Unfortunately, that's what happens when you can just arbitrarily create administrative divisions and basically just give the ol' Etch-a-Sketch a good shake before you get started... how many US states were created in 1889-90 for the primary reason of packing the Congress (especially the Senate) with as many Republican "safe seats" as possible?
May I ask why you're being condescending? I sure never said I agreed with the practice.Unfortunately, that's what happens when you can just arbitrarily create administrative divisions and basically just give the ol' Etch-a-Sketch a good shake before you get started... how many US states were created in 1889-90 for the primary reason of packing the Congress (especially the Senate) with as many Republican "safe seats" as possible?
Nooooo
Had no intention of being condescending to you (of all people - I tend to like your posts! ), was just intending to point out the rather widespread historical abuse of this sort of thing... sort of a form of gerrymandering in a way.The second part of my post was maybe in a more "rhetorical" style than what my intention was - certainly didn't mean it to come across in an accusatorial manner toward you or anything. My apologies if it did.
None as far as i know, being a revolutionary state they were aiming for regime change, a shia majority islamic republic, so they could control all of Iraq.
And yes after two wars America did that for them ☺
As far as I can tell - preventing Iraq from annexing Khuzestan Province and gaining the midline of the Shatt al-Arab as the border.
I apologise for misunderstanding you, then. On the original topic, we Americans really are the masters of internal gerrymandering, aren't we? A quick search on Wikipedia tells me a total of five states were all admitted back-to-back in the autumn of 1889 to the spring of 1890: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. Taking into account that all listed besides Washington are staunchly Republican nowadays, and of the four, only Montana only having more than one million people, one can presume that gerrymandering was the original intention of the majority Republican Congress at the time.Nooooo
The second part of my post was maybe in a more "rhetorical" style than what my intention was - certainly didn't mean it to come across in an accusatorial manner toward you or anything. My apologies if it did.
No, but I also doubt the accuracy and validity of that map. Is it clear effort was put into this? Yes. Are many states here also made up that weren't ever actually proposed? Also yes.
Crazy Boris
Banned
That last one is particularity weird to me, because I can’t imagine that little strip between mini-Saskatchewan and Manitoba would have much in the way of population compared to the others
I haven't come across many of these proposals outside of this map, at least.
When you have North and South Utah but not Deseret and a tri-sected Oklahoma without Sequoyah.