Northern Illinois (especially Chicago) always contrasted with southern Illinois. It's often difficult to get legislation that supports Chicago to pass in Springfield because of all the southerners that hate Chicago.
The inspiration for this post comes from the Illinois governor we all love to hate, Roddie Blago. He made an announcement to the press that he's willing to offer state police and National Guard resources to lower crime levels in Chicago. On the surface it sounds like Springfield is reaching out a friendly hand to Chicago. Once you understand the whole story it winds up being a backhanded slap to Chicago's face. When addressing the media, Blago used very aggressive language to describe the crime situation in Chicago. It's a terribly maniacal political move. He's trying to paint a terribly gruesome portrait of Chicago in a time when the city is trying to give its best face for its 2016 Olympic bid. Blago is proclaiming to the world that Chicago is crime-ridden city that's "out of control" as he puts it. To further emphasize the political nature of this move, he did not discuss this plan with Mayor Daley or any of his staff beforehand. He wanted to blindside the mayor. Plus, if he had discussed this with Daley beforehand, he really wouldn't have been able to make the outrageously aggressive statements he made in front of the press. Blago might as well tell everyone that Al Capone is coming back from the dead and will kill anyone who visits Chicago.
So I say, "screw it". Let's give southern Illinois to Missouri. Blago and all the Chicago-hating southerners will fit in perfectly with St. Louis.
Decisions have to be made where the state line is drawn. I suggest the following counties compose the Illinois side: Will, Grundy, Livingston, McLean, Champaign, Tazewell, Peoria, Knox, Warren, Henderson. The following counties will define the Missouri line: Kankakee, Ford, Vermillion, Douglas, Piatt, De Witt, Logan, Mason, Fulton, McDonough, and Hancock.
The reason for this border is that I'd like to see the fine educational institutions that are Illinois Wesleyan University, Knox College, and the University of Illinois to remain in Illinois, not Blago's hate-world.
I propose that the capital of the new Illinois be Oak Park. It'd be too obvious to make Chicago the new capital of Illinois. Oak Park would be a good solution to satisfy Chicago and the rest of northern Illinois. Oak Park shares a lot of characteristics with Chicago. It's cultured, has great architecture, and has a mix of ethnicity. Maybe put the new capital building in a renovated Frank Lloyd Wright building. Or make Elmhurst the new capital. I always felt that the Elmhurst quarry would make a great location for a baseball stadium. I'll go for the idea to use the quarry to build the new capital building.
Well, as someone who grew up on the Missouri side of the Piatt/Champaign borderlands and still maintains legal residence a quarter mile from the border, I'll give you the downstate perspective (the Decatur/Champaign/Danville axis prefers "East Central" to "Downstate" or "South," BTW).
NOTE that this is all secondhand because I haven't actually lived down there in 12 years, but it's what I hear from family and others.
While you would exile Blago to the hinterlands, it's common knowledge in East Central that he's a shill and lapdog for the Daley Machine; Prince Blago's sole purpose as Governor is to extend King Daley's power throughout the state and turn it all into "Greater Chicago." Blago does nothing without Daley's consent. If he appears that he is snubbing Chicago, it's because Daley told him to do it.
I'd say with very few exceptions (your border is probably a couple counties farther south than practical), most of the counties involved would welcome your plan, provided you keep Blago (From their perspective, he spends more time in "Greater Chicago" than "New Missouri" anyway).
As far as wanting to keep Champaign County...if you put it up to a referendum, you'd be looking at an East/West Berlin situation, with the city of Urbana joining "Greater Chicago" (a move welcomed by the surrounding area) while the rest of the county "goes south." The City of Champaign would be a close call.
Overall, You'd probably be best off letting the whole county go and getting ready to accept the tens of thousands of refugees up at UIC -- because the Cham-banalanders who would prefer "New Missouri" are the ones with the guns.
I love this idea. Southern Illinois was always it's own little state anyways. Let them be part of the misery of Missouri--Mold capital of America.
Wow, Illinois gets really small under this plan. Can we take over part of northern Wisconsin. I like the area up there. I bet Milwaukee would love to be part of Illionois.
excellent observation, JA3. I initially thought that Missouri was trying to hitchhike. But I like the idea that Iowa's about to get a thumping. Though I have nothing against Iowa. But I see Missouri just being a bully anyways.
As a citizen of Central Illinois for the first 25 years of my life, let me tell you this.. They can't stand Blago any more than you. In fact, as JA3 stated, they strongly believe he is extremely Chicago-centric in his thinking with no regard for the rest of the state.
His insistence on living in Chicago rather than living in Springfield (and staying at the provided governors mansion) is a constant source of criticism as they feel he is out of touch with everyone south of I-80. Plus, by living in Chicago he incurs additional expenses (such as travel) everytime he is "forced" to go to Springfield. And naturally, those unnecessary expenses are paid by the taxpayers.
So you see, Blago is pretty much hated throughout the entire state.
Posted by: Mark R on Jul 22, 08 | 9:03 am
In his original post, Moose wrote the following...
It's often difficult to get legislation that supports Chicago to pass in Springfield because of all the southerners that hate Chicago.
While I'm sure you believe this, that comment would be met with disbelief, astonishment and perhaps some outrage" by most downstaters. They for the most part believe that Chicago gets FAR more than its fair share of the states resources. They feel they are the ones who can't get funding or legislation passed because the state government is so skewed towards Chicago that it leaves nothing for them.
I'm not taking sides in this Chicago vs. downstate debate though. I just thought I would share the thoughts and perspective from the rest of the state as your original post seemed rather one sided.
An analogy that immediately comes to mind is New York vs. the rest of the country. While New York continues to believe it is the center of the universe when it comes to sports, culture, fashion, etc... the rest of the country feels everything is unfairly biased towards New York and the "East Coast" in general.
Posted by: Mark R on Jul 22, 08 | 9:27 am
If southern illinois thinks they aren't getting their funding, then yeah, just merge 'em with missouri. Don't the southern Illinoisians love St. Louis anyways?
Or we could just let them have Illinois, and northern Illinois will just cede over to Wisconsin.
I would make a distinction between Central Illinois and Southern Illinois. I grew up in Central Illinois (Peoria) and we were equidistant from both Chicago and St. Louis.
My guess is that you'd see about a 50/50 split between those that favored Chicago and those that favored St. Louis. Having said that, I don't think anyone wants to "merge" just because they favor one city over the other. Most are fairly content with where they are at.
Posted by: Mark R on Jul 22, 08 | 10:57 am
Been a while since I came across a site that made me think an laugh at the same time.
Being from DuPage - south of Will who cares. We thought McHenry - Winnebago already belong to Wisconsin. Could never tell where Lake begins an Cook ends.
