2006-08-25 00:07:30 · 6 answers · asked by That Guy! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
of course yes.it is better for it.it is better for to think about it more than this.
2006-08-25 00:16:27 · answer #1 · answered by david 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's been talk for a while about carving out pieces of Virginia, Maryland and D.C. and creating a new state out of those. The Northern Virginia suburbs are much different than the rest of Virginia, which is for the most part country and southern. Likewise, the Maryland suburbs is much different than the rest of the state (except Baltimore). And D.C. could really use the tax base of the expensive suburbs to lift it out of its poverty and crime. The problems with creating this state or any other state (Northern vs. Southern California, Puerto Rico, etc.) are that 1) 50 is too round of a number; and 2) There are huge political ramifications. The only way we went from 48 to 50 was to add two states--one politically left and the other politically right.
2006-08-25 07:36:35 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Malaprop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but why not rename it "Powhatan"? Before the arrival of the Europeans, Chief Powhatan ruled over the untamed land. Chief Powhatan fathered one of Virginia's more famous historical figures, Pocahontas. Virginia was named to honor Queen Elizabeth I of England, who was often referred to as the "Virgin Queen." So, do you want a state named after a foreign queen or a native warrior?
2006-08-25 07:25:31 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed Music Lover 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all. Rename West Virgina Boondocks or something fitting like that.
2006-08-25 07:13:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You loose the historical connection. Virgina was named after Elizabeth I of England who was known as the virgin queen. Why do I suspect that you didn't even know that?
Limey
2006-08-25 07:42:50 · answer #5 · answered by lykovetos 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope
2006-08-25 07:10:22 · answer #6 · answered by Dawn C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋