STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:Just responding to chatter on other forums. But I pose this question:



Should Illinois split into two different states? Southern Illinoisans gripe about their tax money being spent in Chicago and vise versa. Most of the population lives in Chicago. Southern Illinois has important agriculture.



So, would it be possible or wise to split Illinois?

1. Not possible (so the rest of this is just for fun).



2. What is the scope of the term "wise." Wise for Southern Illinois? Wise for Chicago? Wise for Illinois, generally? Wise for the U.S.? That matters in this situation.



I would argue that the closer Chicago becomes to a city-state, the better off they would be. Thus, getting rid of a large chunk of Illinois that is under-performing relative to them is probably helpful. The only caveat here would be that Chicago may lose some transportation business. Because of Lake Michigan, Illinois basically serves as a roadblock to the transportation infrastructure of the entire northern half of the U.S. Were a Southern Illinois to break off, railroads and the like could be lured south to get around Chicago.



Because of that, I think it would be a boon for Saint Louis. Saint Louis could become a direct competitor with Chicago on the transportation infrastructure part. Not to mention that Chicago would no longer mettle in the Metro East. As it stands now, Chicago controls 1/3 of the Saint Louis Metro Area's landmass. That is pretty helpful when it comes to keeping the competition down.



But, I would argue it would probably be a disaster for the Metro East in the short term. When the Chicago money is funneled into Southern Illinois for pet projects, they usually wind up in the Metro East and the Metro East benefits from its association with Illinois and Chicago. In the near term, there would be no source of dollars for those projects. In the long term, however, a state of Southern Illinois would have no choice but to invest heavily in expanding the Metro East substantially as it would be the largest population center and would have a large say in any Southern Illinois legislature.



I would argue it would be neutral for the rest of Southern Illinois. Most of Southern Illinois is already struggling, so it is hard to see how they wouldn't be up for trying something different. I would say Southern Illinois would suffer a decrease in the quality of infrastructure (roads and whatnot) but that Southern Illinois would see a net economic benefit from getting out from under Illinois' highly regulatory system which scares off some corporations. Southern Illinois would basically become Indiana, which has poorer infrastructure than Illinois, but more large factories in its rural areas, such as the assembly plant Honda is building in southern Indiana now. Other institutions in Southern Illinois would also gain prestige, such as SIU as it would become the state university and would probably be picked up by a BCS conference.



I would argue that it would be bad for central Illinois. North of Springfield, Chicago does really become the dominate city and people in those parts are less anti-Chicago than Southern Illinois is simply because they have more association with that city. I guess it would depend on where you drew the line, but some central Illinois folks would clearly be unhappy with being detached from Chicago. It would be a weird line too as people in Springfield would probably want to be in Southern Illinois and people in Decatur would probably want to be in northern Illinois.



I would argue it would be bad for the U.S. as a whole (and since that is really the only party that matters here because of Article IV, Section III that is really the only argument that matters) because it would set a bad precedent and other disenfranchised rural areas would want to break off from their dominate city, such as Upstate NY, Northern Michigan, Southern Georgia, Western Kentucky, Eastern Washington, etc. There are tensions between Southern Illinois and Chicago, but on a national scope they are really quite meaningless.





As a Southern Illinoisan, I would fully support an effort to ever break off Southern Illinois from the rest of Illinois. But, as a informed citizen, it is hard to see how it would provide enough benefit to any of the parties to warrant the effort.

^Yeah...what he said. There's a lot of, I don't know if I'd call it hostility, but tension between Downstate and Chicago. Chicago rules the state and everyone not in Chicago hates that fact. I agree with Little Egyptian in that I would not mind at all if Southern Illinois becomes another Arkansas or Iowa because of the split (culturally, it already is). But as Little Egyptian also said, it would probably be bad for the US. And Country First.

ricke002 wrote:

Shimmy wrote:^Yeah...what he said. There's a lot of, I don't know if I'd call it hostility, but tension between Downstate and Chicago. Chicago rules the state and everyone not in Chicago hates that fact. :

If Chicago were out of the equation, wouldn't the Metro East rule S. Illinois? Is there really a gain for the person living in Cairo, Metropolis or Mt. Carmel if they are still 3 hours away from the largest population in their state? The hate from these rural S. Illinois communities would just shift from Chicago to Belleville/Edwardsville/ESTL/Granite City.



Also, as someone who grew up in Northern Illinois 3 hours away from Chicago and 4 away from St. Louis, I naturally was more drawn to Chicago over St. Louis 1) Because it's in the same state and 2) It's just a hell of a lot bigger.

I've got no ill feeling for either metro area. I understand how population centers work and realize that the population domination in Chicago is not just an Illinois occurrence. Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts are all dominated by one population center much like Illinois. Should all of these states split in two as well?

On the comparisons, Ricke, not all of those compare to the situation in Illinois. I mean, Rhode Island? It IS a single metro area.



Having lived in Indiana, I can tell you it is totally different, for instance. Indianapolis is an important player at the state level and legislation cannot get through without at least a little support from Indianapolis, but there is a different between 40% legislators from one metro area and 70% percent from one metro area. Rural and Urban have to work together in Indiana. Urban works by itself in Illinois. For instance, Chicago has its own School Code. Yeah, no kidding. There is one set of laws for schools in the rest of Illinois and there is another set of laws for schools in Chicago. Now, that may make perfect sense on a number of levels, but it shows you the difference in the functioning and bifurcation of Illinois politics. That level of independent functioning by the dominant Metro is unique in the Midwest and I think the only other state that has to deal with that at a remotely similar level is NY.

ricke002 wrote:

Shimmy wrote:^Yeah...what he said. There's a lot of, I don't know if I'd call it hostility, but tension between Downstate and Chicago. Chicago rules the state and everyone not in Chicago hates that fact. :

If Chicago were out of the equation, wouldn't the Metro East rule S. Illinois? Is there really a gain for the person living in Cairo, Metropolis or Mt. Carmel if they are still 3 hours away from the largest population in their state? The hate from these rural S. Illinois communities would just shift from Chicago to Belleville/Edwardsville/ESTL/Granite City.

The Metro East would become the biggest area in the state, but, as LE pointed out, nowhere close to the dominance Chicago has. Places such as Effingham and Cairo would have opportunities to get their agendas across. Also, the Metro Easteners are lot more like their rural brethren in Southern Illinois than Chicago is. I think election maps need to be taken with a grain of salt, but let's put our political opinions aside for a minute. To demonstrate why there's a lot of resentment in Southern Illinois towards Chicago, and to demonstrate Chicago's power over the rest of the state, all you have to do is look at the 2004 presidential election map by county:



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... 0/map.html



I'm not trying to get into political discussions, that's not the point. That is simply an example how in a state of 102 counties, only 8 voted blue by a substantial margin. Of those 8, only Cook was dark blue. There were only two shaded blue in Southern Illinois, St. Clair and Jackson, neither of which were overwhelming. And yet, the entire state was, without a question, blue. We have a governor who chose not to live in the Governor's Mansion in Springfield, but instead flies from Chicago to Springfield and back to Chicago everyday. As some have pointed out on other boards, there are people from Chicago who are actually shocked when they find out that there are people living south of I-80. I can't really blame them though, because politically speaking those south of I-80 only have a whisper to try and be heard by. I went to Wikipedia to look at how Chicago rules the state politically. They didn't have any numbers so I started to click on each rep individually. The Illinois House of Represenatives has 118 members, I got through 85 and then I got tired of counting because 54 of those 85 are from Cook County alone (30 of those from Chicago). That's not counting the other Chicagoland suburbs. And of those 85, I think DeKalb was the farthest south that a representative was from. So, when viewed with the facts, it doesn't take much to understand why Southern Illinoisians are hostile (I thought it over, and hostile seems appropriate) towards Chicago.

Everytime this issue is brought up, people seem to not be able to understand the resentment. I explained just part of it. If it is seen as whining, then I must simply turn the mirror everytime Missouri politics is discussed ("Them damn Hoosiers! When are they going to become educated and civilized like us?" ).



Bringing up Blago has more to do with the Chicago mindset. Chicago is a very proud city, which is a good thing. But there's a fine line between pride and arrogance. Not willing to live in the Downstate Governor's Mansion is arrogant because it sends the message that the rest of the state is not worthy. The fact that there's at least 54 of 118 state reps has more to do with the domination part. Let's turn the tables and say the majority of Missouri's representatives resided in Springfield. This board would be up in arms.



As I said before, I like Chicago. Chicago is a great city and I really enjoyed the brief time that I have spent there. I'd just like it a whole lot more if it wasn't in Illinois.

ricke002 wrote:


Chicago dominates Illinois politics because it just so happens to also dominate Illinois population, economy, transportation, culture, growth and identity within the rest of the country and world. If 54 of 118 representatives were from Danville, the state would have a problem. Since 2/3rds of Illinois is Chicago, this SHOULD come as less of a surprise.

Which is why people mumble about breaking off. Where are you failing to comprehend this? In the 1860s, the final straw for the South was the election of 1860. Then it became obvious to the South that they had no say in the country's politics, and that gave them another reason to be pissed off.



I say people have a legit reason to be agitated when they are ruled by people of a complete different mindset crammed in the upper corner of the state, fair or not.

ricke002 wrote:


No, no, I get it.

No, no, apparently you don't.

It is not really worth debating, fellas because it is not going to happen.



The situation in Illinois, where there is real unrest from both parties, is replicated everywhere. Outstate Missouri and Saint Louis share the same unrest. The difference is the degree of unrest and whether there is enough unrest that one or both parties is willing to take action to alleviate the problem, whatever that action is. At this point, the folks of Southern Illinois are waayyy closer to that line than folks in most other states. In the recent past local mayors have explored the possibility of breaking off and local Southern Illinois reporters write their annual story on the Independent State of Southern Illinois, if that gives you any idea. But, they are still a good ways away from that line. For instance, I would argue that the folks of Quebec are much closer to that line in breaking off from the rest of Canada than the folks of Southern Illinois.



But, what is different is that the degree of unrest is high enough that the folks of Southern Illinois have begun to generate their own identity, which is a distinct identity than that of Chicago (which also has begun to generate its own identity). For instance, were you to randomly ask me where I am from, I guarantee my answer would be Southern Illinois. If I feel that the listener does not understand my distinction, I make a further statement to clarify that I am from the part of Illinois that is by Kentucky or I say I grew up not far from Saint Louis. I do NOT want to be identified with Chicago specifically or Illinois, generally. I capitalize the S in Southern Illinois because in my mind, it is a distinct region of the United States. That is my identity. It is my home. Our degree of unrest in Southern Illinois mandates that we differentiate ourselves from what we see as different from us. We are NOT like Chicagoans and we refuse to be identified in that way. Look at my handle, Little Egyptian. I want to be identified not as an Illinois resident, but as a Southern Illinois resident.



But, while the degree of unrest is high enough to generate a different identify, it is not high enough for me to picket the Thompson Center in the Loop. I also am proud of Obama, and consider him a fellow Illinoisan, for instance. So, while it is a hostile relationship in some aspects (for me personally, I am openly hostile to the way schools are funded in Illinois) it is not in all aspects. We are somewhere in the gray.

First off, I would like to apologize if I immaturely jumped the gun on my previous posts. But allow me to clerify.



It's not that I hate Chicago. It's not that I think the people from Chicago are evil. It's opposition to the fact that a single urban center (in the top 8th of the state) rules a largely rural state that it is culturally and politically disconnected with. I am sorry if the fact that resentment to notoriously corrupt Chicago politics dominating the state offends you, but that's the fact. Just as it's a fact that many Chicagoans have resentment towards Downstate because they view it as dead weight. It's a two-way street.



I'm not saying we're going to split. I've even said that it would be a bad thing if we did. You just have to understand the frustration of having relatively no voice in how your government governs.

Little Egyptian wrote:It is not really worth debating, fellas because it is not going to happen.

+1