WI: Virginia and Pennsylvania keep Kentucky and Ohio respectively

As the tin says, what if Virginia is able to keep its claim to Kentucky and Pennsylvania is able to keep its claim to Ohio? Obviously this means they are bigger states. But how would they develop being enlarged and what would this mean for new states down the line: might they also be fairly large (such as a singular Dakota?)?
 
It would be hard for both states to actually maintain their claim on those areas. I think that you're very likely to get secessionist movements attempting to form their own states. And considering the the unlikely politics and logistics of trying to raise a militia to stop them it's probably that they'll get it without too much trouble.

I do think that it might establish the precedent of states seceding from other states if they didn't feel that they were accurately being represented. The state borders of this US might start looking very weird indeed.
 
As the tin says, what if Virginia is able to keep its claim to Kentucky and Pennsylvania is able to keep its claim to Ohio? Obviously this means they are bigger states. But how would they develop being enlarged and what would this mean for new states down the line: might they also be fairly large (such as a singular Dakota?)?
Pennsylvania gave up Ohio long before the US Revolution and never seriously claimes it, due to NY, CT, and Virginia claims (look up Mason-Dixon Line, Western Reserve, and the history leading to those events). You need a PoD back to the French and Indian Wars. Not to mention Maryland required all states to give up claims on Ohio before they agreed to ratify the Articles of Confederation (all 13 states had to ratify before it went into effect, Maryland was last).
 
As the tin says, what if Virginia is able to keep its claim to Kentucky and Pennsylvania is able to keep its claim to Ohio? Obviously this means they are bigger states. But how would they develop being enlarged and what would this mean for new states down the line: might they also be fairly large (such as a singular Dakota?)?
Pennsylvania gave up Ohio long before the US Revolution and never seriously claimes it, due to NY, CT, and Virginia claims (look up Mason-Dixon Line, Western Reserve, and the history leading to those events). You need a PoD back to the French and Indian Wars. Not to mention Maryland required all states to give up claims on Ohio before they agreed to ratify the Articles of Confederation (all 13 states had to rat
It would be hard for both states to actually maintain their claim on those areas. I think that you're very likely to get secessionist movements attempting to form their own states. And considering the the unlikely politics and logistics of trying to raise a militia to stop them it's probably that they'll get it without too much trouble.

I do think that it might establish the precedent of states seceding from other states if they didn't feel that they were accurately being represented. The state borders of this US might start looking very weird indeed.
The US Constitution is clear- for a state to form from another state the original state must pass a law agreeing to the separation. This was even followed by West Virginia (those western counties had a vote as the state of Virginia, then as Virginia they voted to allow themselves to form as West Virginia; US Supreme Court upheld that it was legal as the "other" Virginia was not a legal govt being Confederate). Kentucky was an integral part of Virginia and had full legal rights under Virginia. Virginia voted to allow those counties to form a separate state and Kentucky was one of the rare states to never have been a territory. Maine likewise from Massachussets. It is the same legal reason the US Congress wouldn't accept Vermont until NY voted to allow VT to form as a state because NY still had a legal claim. States can't form from other states solely on their own, or by Congress. The Constitution would have to be amended. And few existing states would agree to that amendment.
 
Top