I think that the same is true of most states east of the Mississippi that were neither original colonies nor covered under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787–for example, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. Those states were often established out of westrern land claimed by one or more of the original colonies, which they ceded to the new Federal government.
One thing that needs mentioning about the Puerto Rico thing: it’s always a 3-way vote between commonwealth, statehood and independence. While the results vary just slightly, the usually average something like:
Commonwealth: 47%
Statehood: 43%
Independence: 10%
So - if one day the US told PR that it couldn’t be a commonwealth any longer - if they had to pick either independence or statehood, it’s far more likely that they would become a state, since statehood only needs 8 percentage points while independence needs 41 of the same votes.
Well if you want to get picky, Maine and West Virginia were not territories either, they were also split off exising states.
Yeah, but it won’t amount to anything.
The reason for the idea is because the city (according to the report) is sending over $3 billion more to the state in taxes than it gets back.
Now, consider the fact that in order to become a separate state, the city needs New York State’s permission. So, if the original report is true, do you see the state giving up its cash cow voluntarily?
Zev Steinhardt
Of course, the residents of my city/district of choice get all the burdens of being U.S. citizens (taxes) with no benefit (congressional representation) Sweet deal, huh?
But until this city gets more rich people in it who can actually organize a movement and weild some influence, there’s no chance of us becoming a state or gaining voting representation (and I actually think the argument for having votes in Congress, especially the Senate, without becoming a state is pretty weak.)
So, basically, people who have repeatedly rejected becoming a state get treated better than those who would love it if only given the chance. Not to mention the fact that a LARGE number of people here help comprise the very government that maintains this status quo. Delicious irony.
There is also talk of splitting Maine into Northern Maine and Southern Maine.
I am very much in favor of splitting New York state, since upstate NY has much more in common with northern New England (as distinct from southern New England) than it does with NYC.
Thank you, Rex Fenestrarum, that is a point that is often lost, making it seem as if it were “rejecting” statehood outright. (BTW the percentages in the last decade have been more like 48.5/46.5/5).
Let’s turn NYC into a baliwick. That way we’d be semi-rid of them and wouldn’t need to change the flag.
I know that WV essentially ‘seceded’ from the Confederacy (I’ve wondered if it’s significant that they didn’t choose to call themselves North Virginia though) but from whom did Maine break off & why?
Maine used to be part of Massachusetts. In 1819, the District of Maine was allowed to petition for statehood. It became the 23rd state in 1820.
Source: A Brief History of Maine
Maine was formerly part of Massachusetts.
The Virginia Legislature that “consented” to the partition of West Virginia was a pro-Union rump that the Federal government recognized in order to keep open a railroad vital to the Northern economy and the Union war effort.
There were, arguably, other states than Maine and West Virginia that were formed out of existing states. Some original colonies claimed that their territory extended westward all the way to the Pacific, so Kentucky was formed from land once claimed by Virginia, and Tennessee from land claimed by North Carolina. But the seaboard states ceded their western claims to the Federal government before the new states were formed. A more curious case is Connecticut’s “western reserve,” which was located in what is now Ohio, with New York and Pennsylvania in between. Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland is so named because it is located in what was the Western Reserve of Connecticut.
Not quite. California was never a “territory”, although it’s claims of being a soveriegn nation (briefly) are a bit specious. It went directly to Statehood, bypassing territory. There was no real government of California until then ( I mean, after we twisted the Mexican government’s arm to cede/sell it to us)
“Lone Star Repbublic” and the Alamo aside, Texas wasn’t realisticly a 'sovereign nation", either. Sure, it split off Mexico- but with unofficial US help (Davy Crockett wasn’t a Texan, you know), and Mexico did see the USA looming there, ominously, when they gave in. Texas then scrambled to become part of the USA, which was likely the plan all along. Having Texas “fight for it’s independence” … THEN join the USA, was a convienent fiction to stop the USA from looking like the Imperialist bully it was.
I say, F*ck Puerto Rico. Boot their slacker asses out of the union for good and let them sink or swim on their own.
They shoot up Congress, capture the Statue of Liberty and bitch and moan about Vieches (sp?), all the while sucking down the subsidy dollars we ship them by the boatload.
No loss when they go. Good riddence, I say!
Texas was, in fact, a sovereign republic, in the eyes of itself and most of the world excluding Mexico, between 1836 and 1845.
Tennessee was organized as “Territory South of the River Ohio” on May 26, 1790, and admitted as a state on June 1, 1796.
Kentucky was admitted by the Enabling Act passed by Congress accepting the cession by Virginia of the “District of Kentucky” and authorizing formation of a state government. The Enabling Act was passed on Feb. 4, 1791, and set June 1, 1792 as the date for admission to the union (allowing time to organize the state government in the interim).
Mississippi Territory, originally including the areas of the states of Alabama and Mississippi (except for the coast areas derived later from West Florida), was formed on April 7, 1798. Mississippi was admitted on December 10, 1817.
Alabama became a separate territory on March 3, 1817, and was admitted as a state on December 14, 1819.
So three of the four states of the Old Southwest were U.S. territories in the government-of-land sense before becoming states.
Vermont declared itself an independent republic but its territory was claimed by New York. Settlement of New York’s claims immediately preceded statehood. So from a legal standpoint it’s about 50:50 whether it constitutes a separate nation preceding statehood.
Polycarp! Outstanding! Thank you.
I believe there is an old law, (was it the Teller Amendment or the Platt Amendment?) that forbids Cuba from becoming a state. I don’t know if it would still be in effect today.
Cuba almost became an American possession after the Spanish-American War. If it had, it may be a state by now. Imagine no Cuban Missile Crisis.
From my experience South Carolina should secede from the union -again- and become “The Confederate State of South Carolina” and stay out. The rest of the country would be better off without it. I think there is still hidden resentment that they had to rejoin the USA.
Oruginally posted by yabob
It’s to small a number, for a republic anyway. There are only 545 congressmen to represent nearly 300 million people. Either add many new congressional seats for representation, or create new states. Or a radical new proposal that I am making, create a new level between the states and the federal level. Somewhat similar to the boroughs of New York City. States send reps. and sens. to the “regions” (possibly based on the 16 states proposed by that professor yabob quoted) who then send reps. and sens. to the federal level. But that makes things needlessly and frighteningly complicated (I scared myself here).
Folks in Northern Virginia have been talking for years about seceding from Virginia. Different economy, different culture, different demographics, different needs, different politics, and a sense of being taken advantage of by the rest of the state.
And let’s not forget the DC Statehood folks. Their motto “Taxation With Representation” :mad: is on DC license plates, and I have a t-shirt of theirs with the same thing.
[hijack]
I personally think that DC doesn’t have to population or the tax base to support their own state, especially with the federal government dominating everything. Since the capitol constitutionally cannot be in a state, DC should be redistricted to be just the federal area, from the White House and points south. The rest could be ceded to Maryland.
The problem with this is DC residents want their own state, and Maryland doesn’t want the District and its problems. So my counter-proposal is to make DC exempt from Federal Taxes. Not only would that eliminate the complaint that residents were taxed without representation, but it would make DC the hottest real estate market in the US.
[/hijack]
In that case, then, JoltSucker, how about a state comprised of: Counties of Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Prince William, and perhaps Stafford, and Cities of Washington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Virginia, Fairfax, and Manassas? Congress retains jurisdiction over Federal land within its boundaries.