A "lost" US state?

Historically, there hasn't been any "former" US state, by which I mean a state which once existed, was officially recognized, had a government and congressional representation, but either was dissolved into another state or was lost to another country. What if there were?

The first thought of course is if the Confederate States had successfully broken away. But I'm interested in some other possibilities.

2) Redrawing Southern state lines after the Civil War: was there any thought post-reconstruction to completely redrawing the southern states' boundaries? Perhaps not just by splitting them up but by merging them in order to dilute their power in the US Senate?

3) Perhaps a more realistic candidate for a "lost" US state would be Yucatan. During the Polk Administration, in the midst of the Mexican-American War, the Yucatan, then an unrecognized breakaway state, petitioned the US to annex it. A bill to do so passed the House but died in the Senate. But what if it had passed? It's easy to imagine the US absorbing the Yucatan as a state de jure, with the political leaders sending senators and members of Congress to the US. But it's also easy to imagine this devolving into a long-run and costly insurgency, and with the Yucatan ultimately being abandoned as a costly and mistaken imperialistic adventure.
 
Would West virginia count?

Because before West Virgina and its 3 congressional district, it had been apart of the rest of Virgina, for example Virginia's 12th congressional district would become West Virginia's 3rd congressional district
 
My first thought when I read this was the lost state of Franklin. That or Jefferson Territory (the one in what is now mostly Colorado).

Yes, but neither was recognized - there were attempts, especially early in US history for communities to form a proto-state government and petition for statehood but without it ever being formally granted or recognized. Franklin is one; there was also an attempt to form a "Transylvania" state in what is now Kentucky, and a few others.

But I'm referring to a de jure US state - recognized by the US government, with senators, members of Congress, etc.
 
West Florida is the one former republic and former British colony to boot that has not survived as either part of America or Canada. If they had managed to get Mobile to revolt with St. Francisville, WF might've had a fighting chance to survive and get its remaining intergral part (Pensacola's district) added to it when Jackson snagged it, or ceded in the Transcontinental Treaty.

It would be using just the 1763 borders and being a thin strip of coast than pressing inland a la the 1767 boundaries, but it would still exist.

(Bonus: its inland area from 1767 is equivalent to the original Mississippi Territory area and disputed between Spain and America till the Pinckney Treaty).
 
Why would any state get rid of itself? According to the Constitution, doing anything like that requires the permission of the State itself.

IOTL, the only possible time would likely be the Civil War, when rules rather went out the window (e.g. the creation of West Virginia), and situations were 'fixed' ex post facto.

Declaring rebellious states to be null and void, and creating new ones out of their territory would be a possibility, as I think someone mentioned above.
 
Harry Truman thought that Nevada should be deprived of its statehood, writing in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

He wasn't the first person to think so. In the late nineteenth century, Nevada was in the "bust" phase of the boom-and-bust mining cycle. Its population in 1900 was 42,335--less than it had been in 1870. The state had one-fourth the population of an average US congresional district. In 1897 *The Forum* published an article "Shall Nevade Be Deprived of Statehood?" which noted that

"In the course of a spirited editorial article entitled, "How to Deal with Nevada," the Chicago "Tribune " remarked:—

"'Congress is perfectly able to deal with the unprecedented condition of affairs which exists in Nevada. The silver-mines which made her all she was have been exhausted. She has no other mineral wealth. She has no agricultural resources. She has nothing to attract people; and, as a consequence, she is flickering out'

"The "Tribune" urges that the thing to do is to deprive Nevada of her statehood, or at least to exclude her Senators from Congress, as was done with the seceding Southern States during the war and reconstruction periods. The same newspaper serves timely notice upon Wyoming that, failing to show a satisfactory growth in population when the census of 1900 shall be returned, that State also may be invited to march out of the Union with her unfortunate neighbor. These suggestions have been quoted with approval by many newspapers; and the feasibility of merging Nevada into the more populous State of Utah has also been widely discussed during the past few years.

"To degrade loyal States by depriving them of important attributes of their sovereignty would be radical, if not revolutionary. If it were suspected that the real motive for their unprecedented humiliation was the fact that they disagreed politically with a view strenuously held by about 52 per cent of the voters in the nation, and persistently acted with the minority of 48 per cent, it is possible that the proposed proceeding would be worse than radical,—perilous indeed, and fraught with new evils more dangerous than those which it is sought to remove. But happily the time has not come when it is necessary to appeal to the deeper and graver arguments which might be urged against the dissolution of the Union on the instalment plan..." https://books.google.com/books?id=d0E9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

Despite the *Tribune* (which was probably just angry at Nevada's support for Bryan) there was no consitutional way to *force* Nevada to abandon its statehood. But I am wondering if the federal government could give it economic *incentives* to revert to territorial status or join a neighboring states--and whether in the desperate economic conditions of the 1890's, Nevada might actually be tempted to do so...
 
Harry Truman thought that Nevada should be deprived of its statehood, writing in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

He wasn't the first person to think so. In the late nineteenth century, Nevada was in the "bust" phase of the boom-and-bust mining cycle. Its population in 1900 was 42,335--less than it had been in 1870. The state had one-fourth the population of an average US congresional district. In 1897 *The Forum* published an article "Shall Nevade Be Deprived of Statehood?" which noted that

"In the course of a spirited editorial article entitled, "How to Deal with Nevada," the Chicago "Tribune " remarked:—

"'Congress is perfectly able to deal with the unprecedented condition of affairs which exists in Nevada. The silver-mines which made her all she was have been exhausted. She has no other mineral wealth. She has no agricultural resources. She has nothing to attract people; and, as a consequence, she is flickering out'

"The "Tribune" urges that the thing to do is to deprive Nevada of her statehood, or at least to exclude her Senators from Congress, as was done with the seceding Southern States during the war and reconstruction periods. The same newspaper serves timely notice upon Wyoming that, failing to show a satisfactory growth in population when the census of 1900 shall be returned, that State also may be invited to march out of the Union with her unfortunate neighbor. These suggestions have been quoted with approval by many newspapers; and the feasibility of merging Nevada into the more populous State of Utah has also been widely discussed during the past few years.

"To degrade loyal States by depriving them of important attributes of their sovereignty would be radical, if not revolutionary. If it were suspected that the real motive for their unprecedented humiliation was the fact that they disagreed politically with a view strenuously held by about 52 per cent of the voters in the nation, and persistently acted with the minority of 48 per cent, it is possible that the proposed proceeding would be worse than radical,—perilous indeed, and fraught with new evils more dangerous than those which it is sought to remove. But happily the time has not come when it is necessary to appeal to the deeper and graver arguments which might be urged against the dissolution of the Union on the instalment plan..." https://books.google.com/books?id=d0E9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

Despite the *Tribune* (which was probably just angry at Nevada's support for Bryan) there was no consitutional way to *force* Nevada to abandon its statehood. But I am wondering if the federal government could give it economic *incentives* to revert to territorial status or join a neighboring states--and whether in the desperate economic conditions of the 1890's, Nevada might actually be tempted to do so...

That's really interesting actually - would it be merged with another state, or divided between them?
 

Driftless

Donor
Based purely on population: combine the Dakotas?
* 2010 Census
* North Dakota - 672,591​
* South Dakota - 814,180​

Leave the Carolinas as a single state as they started as one colony

A little different tack...Add the Upper Pennisula (UP) of Michigan to Wisconsin
 
Why would any state get rid of itself? According to the Constitution, doing anything like that requires the permission of the State itself.

IOTL, the only possible time would likely be the Civil War, when rules rather went out the window (e.g. the creation of West Virginia), and situations were 'fixed' ex post facto.

Declaring rebellious states to be null and void, and creating new ones out of their territory would be a possibility, as I think someone mentioned above.

Lincoln was very opposed to the integrity of states violated and was extremely reluctant to recognize West Virginia, even with its historical differences from the rest of Virginia and the strong desire of the place's residents for it. I can't really imagine anyone approving the flat-out dissolution of a state.

Based purely on population: combine the Dakotas?
* 2010 Census
* North Dakota - 672,591​
* South Dakota - 814,180​
Leave the Carolinas as a single state as they started as one colony

A little different tack...Add the Upper Pennisula (UP) of Michigan to Wisconsin

As a Michigander, it pains me to say that this....would actually make sense. Really the only reason the UP was added to our state was to make up for settling a boundary dispute over the Toledo strip in Ohio's favor.
 

Driftless

Donor
As a Michigander, it pains me to say that this....would actually make sense. Really the only reason the UP was added to our state was to make up for settling a boundary dispute over the Toledo strip in Ohio's favor.

The UP & Northern Wisconsin have more in common than with either Lower Michigan or Eastern Wisconsin.

There a multitude of alternative state boundaries that have been drawn up over the last two plus centuries - some with a great deal of thought and logic, and some others.... not so much:rolleyes:

The great explorer John Wesley Powell proposed dividing states based on their primary watersheds ( which has a fair amount of connection to economics BTW..) Here's a version of Powell's idea drawn up by John Lavery
 
Based purely on population: combine the Dakotas?
* 2010 Census
* North Dakota - 672,591​
* South Dakota - 814,180​

Leave the Carolinas as a single state as they started as one colony

A little different tack...Add the Upper Pennisula (UP) of Michigan to Wisconsin

Didn't the Carolinas also originally include Georgia? So, all of the territory claimed by the "Carolina" could include the modern states of North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, if you extend the claim to the Mississippi River.
 

Driftless

Donor
Didn't the Carolinas also originally include Georgia? So, all of the territory claimed by the "Carolina" could include the modern states of North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, if you extend the claim to the Mississippi River.

Yup. Many of the early colonial territorial claims got a little disconnected from good sense. :rolleyes: Some of the Virginia, Massachusetts, an New York claims were a bit "expansive" too....

This is more of the Carolina colony variant I was thinking of - 1663
 
Last edited:

PhilippeO

Banned
Since constitution give protection to state, Is there any way for citizen of disappeared state to gain benefit by merging with other state ?

can bankrupt state petition its neighbor to assume its debt or pay it pension instead of declare bankruptcy ? or citizen of state want vote in neighboring state water management ? or political reason, perhaps a rural state with growing cities believe join another state is onlyway to preserve rural interest?
 
Harry Truman thought that Nevada should be deprived of its statehood, writing in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

He wasn't the first person to think so. In the late nineteenth century, Nevada was in the "bust" phase of the boom-and-bust mining cycle. Its population in 1900 was 42,335--less than it had been in 1870. The state had one-fourth the population of an average US congresional district. In 1897 *The Forum* published an article "Shall Nevade Be Deprived of Statehood?" which noted that

"In the course of a spirited editorial article entitled, "How to Deal with Nevada," the Chicago "Tribune " remarked:—

"'Congress is perfectly able to deal with the unprecedented condition of affairs which exists in Nevada. The silver-mines which made her all she was have been exhausted. She has no other mineral wealth. She has no agricultural resources. She has nothing to attract people; and, as a consequence, she is flickering out'

"The "Tribune" urges that the thing to do is to deprive Nevada of her statehood, or at least to exclude her Senators from Congress, as was done with the seceding Southern States during the war and reconstruction periods. The same newspaper serves timely notice upon Wyoming that, failing to show a satisfactory growth in population when the census of 1900 shall be returned, that State also may be invited to march out of the Union with her unfortunate neighbor. These suggestions have been quoted with approval by many newspapers; and the feasibility of merging Nevada into the more populous State of Utah has also been widely discussed during the past few years.

"To degrade loyal States by depriving them of important attributes of their sovereignty would be radical, if not revolutionary. If it were suspected that the real motive for their unprecedented humiliation was the fact that they disagreed politically with a view strenuously held by about 52 per cent of the voters in the nation, and persistently acted with the minority of 48 per cent, it is possible that the proposed proceeding would be worse than radical,—perilous indeed, and fraught with new evils more dangerous than those which it is sought to remove. But happily the time has not come when it is necessary to appeal to the deeper and graver arguments which might be urged against the dissolution of the Union on the instalment plan..." https://books.google.com/books?id=d0E9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

Despite the *Tribune* (which was probably just angry at Nevada's support for Bryan) there was no consitutional way to *force* Nevada to abandon its statehood. But I am wondering if the federal government could give it economic *incentives* to revert to territorial status or join a neighboring states--and whether in the desperate economic conditions of the 1890's, Nevada might actually be tempted to do so...

Right, there were many proposals in the late 19th Century, before Idaho and Utah had been given statehood for Nevada to be merged into one of those territories in order to boost its population. Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have bifurcated Idaho and merged the southern half with Nevada (which would have also made for a very weird-looking state). I suppose if you changed the name that would count as being a "lost" state.

I think in the end I can only really see this as being part of some failed territorial landgrab. Either Yucatan, as I mentioned above, or maybe some case where an existing state was conquered and annexed by someone else - say that during the revolution, the US was able to grab Canada, but that in a later war (not the OTL War of 1812 but some alt-analogue), Britain recaptures part of it.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
Another variant: leave the US Northwest Territories as a single unit, or sub-divide it less than OTL. ( i.e. Ohio+Indiana+ Lower Michigan as one state vs Illinois + Wisconsin + UP Michigan + Minnesota Arrowhead as a second state )

northwest_territory.jpg
 
Or perhaps a really spectacular natural disaster.

See Allen Danzig's The Great Nebraska Sea. Iirc a super-earthquake led to much of the central US sinking below sea level and being flooded. Most of the flooded states survived in some or other form, but Oklahoma was left entirely submerged and thereafter Congress declined to recognise it as a State.
 
Or perhaps a really spectacular natural disaster.

See Allen Danzig's The Great Nebraska Sea. Iirc a super-earthquake led to much of the central US sinking below sea level and being flooded. Most of the flooded states survived in some or other form, but Oklahoma was left entirely submerged and thereafter Congress declined to recognise it as a State.

Nah, some inner islands would remain...like a second Hawaii: the Oklahoma Islands :D
 
Or have Britain take Vermont and New Hampshire.

That's my thought, too. If Britain won the War of 1812 in a big way, it might take Vermont. Gen. Prevost hoped that Vermont might secede and join British Canada. One reason why he marched in 1814 on the western rather than eastern shore of Lake Champlain was to spare the Vermonters (who had supplied him with timber) the ravages of war.
 
Top