Diceman: Does D.C. really only have about 500k people? I thought that the 1990 census listed its population at about a million. Sigh I guess it really is one of the worst cities in America.
At the max it had about 850,000. When I moved here 14 years ago, it had about 650,000. Now it’s about 500,000.
In one particular year, the population dropped by 20,000. It was also one of the deadliest years when just over 500 people were murdered. It’s pretty sad when 2.5% of your population decline is due to murder.
Um, did you guys know that Alaska’s last governor, Wally Hickel, ran under the Alaskan Independence Party? No, not the Alaskan Independents Party, the Independence Party.
There was a serious, albeit small, movement that claimed we got a raw deal during statehood, what with the Feds owning half the land in Alaska and telling us when we could shoot wolves and stuff. If you think the SDMD is libertarian, try moving to Alaska. We should have seceded, we’d have plenty of money from oil, timber, fishing, etc.
(No, the permanent fund doesn’t violate libertarian principles. The oil companies are drilling on public land, so they pay a royalty to the state for permission. The money belongs to the taxpayers. If they were drilling on private land that they owned, they would only have to pay taxes.)
There is some similar resentment against Ontario in BC, but I doubt even they would join the US. If Quebec is kicked out of Canada, all bets are off, but I just can’t see it. More likely is EU style supranational governance with US, Mexico, Chile, etc.
Also, DC statehood. Why should we give DC statehood? Even under the “no taxation without representation” logic, we should give the relevant portions back to Maryland and Virginia, not give them their own state, fer cryin out loud. Anyway, the whole point of the DC statehood movement is to give the Democrats two more senators. Absent that, no statehood movement.
IIRC, Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as part of a deal between Republicans and Democrats. No one wanted to upset the balance of power in Congress too much, so they admitted Alaska (which was expected to vote mostly Republican) and Hawaii (which was expected to vote mostly Democrat). Today, the two jurisdictions most often named as the potential fifty-first and fifty-second states (DC and PR) would probably both vote mostly Democrat.
In recent years I have heard clamoring from several rural areas to secede from their states: western Nebraska, northern California, northern Maine, upstate New York, Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and eastern Tennessee. This could conceivably solve the party-balance problem, since many of these secessionist areas are Republican. On the other hand, I don’t think any of these efforts really has a snowball’s chance in hell.
Diceman, DC and Puerto Rico were listed with the Canadian provinces for what I assumed was an obvious reason. They were all being mentioned in this thread as possible states.
The State of Texas, by the terms of its admission into the Union (it had been a sovereign nation) has the right to divide itself up into 5 different states. I’ve never heard serious consideration given to actually doing this, but you never know what situation might develop.
Regarding the Upper Peninsula, I’ve never understood why it’s not part of Wisconsin. Looking at a map, I’d guess the UP’ers have more in common with the cheeseheads than their fellow Michiganders.
In fact, why doesn’t Wisconsin just invade and annex it?
I used to hear this myth all the time when I lived in Houston, along with the one about Texas reserving the right to secede again if it wants to. I’ve never been given a cite to substantiate either, and I strongly suspect both claims are just typical Texan pomposity, making spurious claims of special rights to make themselves feel superior.
As for giving the UP to Wisconsin, I suppose Wisconsin would then have to give Eau Claire to Minnesota, and Minnesota would have to give Moorhead to North Dakota, etc, etc.
Five: the part about Texas being able to divide itself in five parts is not a myth. It is part of the trety by which the Independent nation of Texas became part of the United States. I’ll try to find a cite for you.
Cuba was seriously considered as a candidate for annexation and statehood just prior to the Civil War, as a way of adding another slave state to counterbalance the addition of a new free state.
Frankly, I’m a little suprised that small, impoverished nations around the world haven’t offered themselves to the U.S. as territories with the prospect of eventual statehood. Liberia would be a prime candidate, as it was colonized by freed American slaves. Offering one’s territory up to the U.S. might be an excellent way of seceding from a larger entity. Texas, Western Florida, and California all pulled that trick way back when, but in at least one, if not all, of those cases the move was planned and executed with the help and blessing of the U.S. Today, Bouganville, in the Solomon Islands, comes to mind. I’m not saying the U.S. would bite at such an opportunity, I’m just curious to know if such a thing has been tried recently.
My post about Wisconsin and the UP was, of course, a joke.
Oddly enough, I have many friends these days who are from Wisconsin, and when I spring this little bon mot on them their responses are uniform: “Why would we want it? There’s nothing there!” bibliophage:
Yes, please do. Because regardless of the terms of Texas’ joining the Union in 1848, there was a later incident which concluded around 1865 that pretty decisively settled whether or not any state (including Texas) could secede.
And the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 makes it pretty clear that Texas couldn’t just up and split into five (or Five) all by itself.
Regarding the story about Texas being able to divide itself in five: I first read about it in One-Night Stands with American History by Richard Shenkman and Kurt Reiger. They give their source as The People’s Almanac, not the most authoritative reference. The research I’ve done on the web just now shows that the Senate rejected the treaty with Texas in 1844 and Congress annexed Texas by joint resolution on Dec. 19, 1845. Although Texas did not join the union by treaty, it is still apparently true that it does have the right to divide itself. In another thread, Alphagene provided links that explain the situation.
Interesting thread-I’m wondering what the (coming) breakup of Canada means for the USA. The way I see it, canda has ceased to be a viable nation-state:QUEBEC-wants their own language and culture. They also have strong trading links with new England, and don’t need attachment to the rest of canada.
-The Maritimes: are too poor to make it as independant states-they also are bound to new England by culture and trade.
-B.C. - is a natural extension of California/Oregon/Washington, and trades mostly with the Pacific Rim (no, we DON’T need the CPR).
-Alberta and Saskatchewan belong with Montana and the great Basin States.
-Ontario: is big enough to be on its own
Which Leaves:
-the NW Territories: sell it off to the highest bidder
-the Yukon: add to Alaska
-Labrador (who needs it?)
-Newfoundland?
An article on this originally appeared in Forbes about a year and a half ago, but they don’t have the electronic rights to it so I can’t give you a link to it.
bibliophage et al, What about the fact that Texas, when admitted to the U.S., in fact contained areas that are now parts of other states, including (if my poor memory serves) parts of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and maybe Arizona? Would that not imply that the right of Texas to divide has already been employed, and is thus no longer outstanding?
In my college geography class (some six years ago), we discussed that the U.S. itself has several de facto regions of similitude, and that effectively it could partition into something like 11 countries (maybe it was less - it’s not like I need to know this) based on these differences. It was almost hinted that this was a possibility that the U.S. might still fracture this way. Especially if Canada and Mexico are added to the shuffle. (Parts of Texas would return to Mexico.)
J String, how funny. Wouldn’t that be an ironic turn of events, suddenly Great Britain becomes a colony of the U.S. Bwuhahahahaha!
Yes! Let’s redefine North America! Time for a millennium shuffle!
When I was at university, I read The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau. Amazon.com says it’s out of print, unfortunately (it was written in 1981). This book was one of those rare eye-openers which immediately changed the way I looked at the world.
Garreau divided North America into nine cultural regions, and noted that some of them were already starting to act like proto-nations.
If I remember correctly, the Nine Nations were:
Quebec:
-already separate culturally and linguistically, and with an established political separatist movement.
“The Foundry”:
-the industrial heartland of eastern North America: Ontario, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. Once the cultural centre of North America, then known as the Rust Belt, and now struggling to change into something else.
“The Empty Quarter”:
-the resource-rich and lightly populated areas that many people think of as “The West”: Colorado, Alberta, Montana, western Texas, etc. Where people wrest their future from the ground with the strength of their own hands.
“Ecotopia”:
The wet part of the west coast: Central California north through BC to Alaska, and eastwards as far as the dry interior valleys. The heartland of “environmental” activism and nature-based spirituality, among other things. Garreau wrote before Neopaganism became as well known as it is now, but his descriptions clearly show its cultural foundation.
“Aztlan”:
-the dry desert lands where Spanish and English mix. Couthern California, northern Mexico, Arizona, southwestern Texas, etc, north of the Spanish-only part of Mexico. We call it “The SouthWest”.
“The Islands”:
The Caribbean. Interestingly, Garreau includes South Florida in The Islands, and places its capital in Miami.
“The Breadbasket”:
-the Prairies and the Midwest. Smart farmers, feeding the world, between the forests and the rangelands.
“New England”:
Vermont, Maine, etc, east of the influence of suburban New York City, but also including the Maritime Provinces of Canada.
and
“Dixie”:
The South. Mostly the same area as the Confederacy, I think.
Garreau also noted a number of “anomalies” that do not belong to these cultural nations, such as New York City, Hawai’i (interestingly in the light of its independence movement), and the First Nations in the north (anticipating, among other things, Nunavut).
He also noted that some areas are up for grabs: citing Alaska as a prize for Ecotopia, the Empty Quarter and the First Nations.
He mentioned some possible conflicts that might occur as well, such as “water wars” between Ecotopia and Aztlan. Many of these conflicts now play themselves out within existing political structures that cross cultural boundaries. One of his examples, I think, was eastern Oregon (part of the Empty Quarter) versus western Oregon (part of Ecotopia).
It’s been a long time since I read this book, but it doesn’t seem to be any less true now…
SOFA KING: After WW2 many Sicilians petitioned for Sicily to become a State, but were turned down. We figured we had enough gangsters.
In the early 1980s there was a pretty serious movement for the 8 lower counties in New Jersey to secede from the state on the grounds that Trenton was dominated by Northern Jersey politcians, but of course nothing ever came of it.
I would not be suprised at all if after Castro kicks the bucket and a democracy (hopefully) takes over, with the huge voting block in Southern Florida, Cuba petitions to become a state. This would make the more sense than PR because it is only 90 miles form Key West.
IMHO Cuba is even more unlikely to become a US state than Quebec is. They’re an established nation with their own culture, unlike Puerto Rico which I think has always been under someone else’s thumb. Why would they want to give up their sovereignty to the gringos? In fact, when Castro dies the Cubas I’ve met will probably be on a plane for Havanah the next day, if not sooner.