Opponents of ending taxation without representation for the majority-minority District of Columbia argue that the District is too small (pop 700k) to deserve two votes in the U.S. Senate.
This criticism is, of course, absolutely right, and not in any way racist or related to maintaining an undemocratic minority hegemony in Congress.
Therefore, I propose adding the District to the State of Wyoming (pop 580k), thereby fixing this problem in two places at once.
Congress drew the present boundaries of Wyoming in 1890, and would only need to amend its Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Wyoming into the Union to effect this change.
I am unaware of any provision of law requiring that states comprise contiguous territories, but if need be Congress could also transfer to Wyoming land area an inch wide along the present boundaries of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Nebraska, to connect the two areas.
(And wouldn’t Eldredge Gerry be proud!)
As a sovereign state, of course, the redrawn Wyoming would be free to relocate its capitol city east, to be closer to the majority of its residents.
I suppose it is possible that a change of this magnitude might ruffle some feathers, even though it rectifies the population problem that is the sincere and principled concern of the foes of DC statehood.
An acceptable compromise might be to permit separate statehood for the District, plus the end of the Electoral College or the creation of additional Senate seats for large states. But that, of course, would require a constitutional amendment and ratification by the states.
I totally love this.
Indeed! Well done sir!
Well, yeah. If it does, if one must be able walk the entirety without crossing another land mass or significant body of water, then let’s take a look at Michigan…and then think about the new states of Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Long Island (NY) the place of my birth!
Once done, I’d suggest the same with Puerto Rico getting added to Alaska. We’d have to change the State Motto from “North to the Future” to “North to the Future, and Beyond!” (with thanks to Buzz Lightyear)
And how about Wyoming…it’s current motto is “Equal Rights”….so how about “Equal Rights & Justice For All” (adding the DC Motto, perfect!)
WY would of course have to approve, which I doubt would happen, and you can’t add Senators for just some states even by amendment.
I know I’m an outlier among Dems, but I oppose DC statehood. The reasons the Framers didn’t want the federal capital to be a state or part of a state are still valid. Even if you keep a tiny federal precinct having a single city-state doesn’t make sense and the land was ceded from MD for the express purpose of creating a capital as the Constitution provides. The better solution IMO would be to retrocede the former Washington County (west of Rock Creek, north of Florida Avenue, and east of the Anacostia River) to MD, for which there is precedent regarding the VA side of the Potomac. The remaining Washington City would get as much home rule as possible, get a voting representative in the House, and relate to Congress the way most cities relate to their state governments. Frankly, that city doesn’t belong just to its residents, but to all of us as our capital.
Yet we give Boston as much self-government as any other city in the Commonwealth.
A couple of obvious notes.
1) Ain’t gonna happen. (Ain’t nothing gonna happen w/o end of filibuster, for that matter.)
2) but if it did happen, saying that Wyoming would have to approve an Act of Congress does not make it so.
3) I like my idea better, but if people are going to try to shlub this off by saying “just merge with Maryland [pop 6M],” then my response is OK, the same act should merge Wyoming and Montana (pop 1M) or Idaho (pop 1.8M) or Nebraska (1.9M) or, hey, all of them together (combined pop less that Maryland alone).
Plus electoral college or Senate reform, and a player to be named later.
After all, the critics all say the unfariness is to give that tiny tiny DC two senators. (cue tears of the croc.) We can fix that tewwable pwoblem with Wyoming at the same time.
As for your originalist, antebellum, and slavery-era affection for the “express purpose of creating a capital,” well, if it’s OK to give that territory to Maryland, it is just as OK to give that territory to those who live there.
OKer, even.
Some bad history there and some bad constitutionalism. Yes, the legislatures of any affected state must approve proposals to split and consolidate, along with Congress. MD ceded the land for a federal capital, not for the purpose of creating another state. I’m not arguing that it would be unfair to give DC Senators; I’m saying Senators are the prerogatives of the semi-sovereign states, which DC should not be. Yes, we give Boston home rule, but it is not a semi-sovereign entity; I did say give DC city-style home rule. States are unitary entities anyway rather than federal. This has nothing to do with slavery and I get so tired of liberals making that the bogeyman for everything else they don’t like.
Sorry to try your revisionist patience, but a bit of unfortunate history you may have missed is that the District was essentially built by enslaved Americans and those who civil and economic conditions were deformed by the institution of slavery.
I agree that bit of history is bad, though perhaps not in the sense that you seem to mean.
Many of the Districts current residents are descendants of those individuals and/or suffer in a broader sense from those circumstances. That, as well as the Constitution of the United States, trumps the expectations you attribute to the State of Maryland that are both fuzzy and mythological, since Maryland would be the only entity qualified to make such claims (if it were) and does not do so.
If we are going to heed Santyana’s warning about history, which surely applies to the bad stuff, we need to be prepared to be challenged by it and not just use it a a buttress for the status quo.
I know many of the buildings were built by slaves, but the federal capital city is not a distinct jurisdiction because of slavery. In other words, the reasons for its status would still be valid even if the US had never had slavery. I want its residents to manage their internal affairs and have a vote in Congress, but as an American and someone who has spent time there I want it to retain its special status and I want Congress to be its state government. I’m right about the Constitution and the history – both being my particular areas of expertise and study. I contend that unlike the admission of any other state this would require an amendment, even with the tiny Vatican-esque jurisdiction which I’m not sure should have 3 EVs plus the ones the state would have. BTW, in case you’re wondering I’d be making exactly the same arguments if the entire city were rich and white.
“I want to keep it special”. That’s a strange argument. Everyplace is special. Washington DC would still be a special place if its inhabitants had all the rights of citizens. If there are busloads of tourists who yearn to breathe the air in a place that doesn’t have the right to rule itself, too bad for them. But I think you’re pretty much alone on that bus.
Anyway, is “special” the right word? Shouldn’t it be “peculiar”, like in “peculiar institution”?
As an American I want a say in its government through Congress in a way that I don’t for any other city or state in the country.
As an American, I believe that the right to representation — especially in matters of taxation — is a fundamental right of every citizen. This right was an explicit motivation for the original conflict with the crown, a conflict that originated right here in Boston. I believe it is particularly significant that the overwhelming majority of the 700,000 citizens living in Washington DC are black.
I think that this fundamental right transcends the tradition that you appeal to. It think it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Equal Protection clause and of the many statutes prohibiting discrimination based on race.
I have said they should have representation in Congress.
At least Christopher seems to have reconsidered his original position that the adult white male property owners of Maryland in 1788 (who are afaik dead) have a claim that is superior to the powers that the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress.
There’s one other option at least hinted at by previous governance. The early maps of DC labelled the north side of the Potomac “part of Maryland within the Federal District” and the south side (now Alexandria and Arlington) “part of Virginia within the Federal District”. I believe the idea was to let the residents thereof vote for Congress from those states, but governed directly by Congress. This was back when in any other context Congress’s direct rule was more limited anyway.
When DC started it was only open land. There was no way to give it any status beyond calling it a territory.
Many thought it would be a desolate place with nothing going on, since all power was reserved by the states.
Others thought it was going to be a booming Mecca, and so the speculation began. The most important character caught in that fever was Robert Morris, one of only two people to sign all three founding documents. Hamilton gets all this credit and fame, but it was really Robert Morris that deserves it. I could talk about him for a while. He should be a household name. The root cause of 9/11 is Morris and Franklin, two adopted Philadelphians.
As far as slaves building the city goes, an interesting fact is that the canals were dug by Irishman. Slavemasters refused to rent out their slaves for the job because the work was too dangerous.
Morris went bankrupt, btw. Bankruptcy laws were crafted primarily to get him out of debtors prison. The Mecca didn’t arrive until years later. Part of the property that bankrupted him is where Watergate stands. History has a fantastic sense of humor.
Perhaps. OTOH, the status of Washington DC had a major influence on whether MD sided with the North or South at the outbreak of hostilities in 1861.
It was no accident that the VA portion of the original boundary of the district was ceded to VA in during the run-up to the Civil War in no small part of because of political tensions driven by the disenfranchisement of VA residents who lived in the district.
It should also be noted that African American population of Washington DC first became a minority in 1957.
Should be “first became a majority in 1957”
I believe they are no longer a majority, though certainly a large plurality. Doesn’t matter anyway, at least to me. DC could be as white as Vermont and I’d be making the same arguments.
Also, the slave trade had been abolished in DC but the VA still wanted to engage in it. As for disenfranchisement, this is exactly why I propose retrocession to MD to resolve the same problem.
For decades even modest home rule was opposed by Southern segregationists who were always given the DC committee and used it to prevent even a city council well into the 60’s, if not later. Frederick Douglass was calling for DC statehood as early as the 1880’s, and while Baltimore and Boston (and New Bedford and Lynn) have fair claims to him, I think it’s only fitting that the Douglass Commonwealth be made a state, a district no longer.
If I had been alive then I definitely would have advocated for home rule for internal affairs.
The reality is DC is not an insular territory but a territory created by the recession of territory from two different states. The process of changing this clearly rests with the people of DC-who overwhelmingly want statehood-and Congress ratifying their wishes. Senators represent more sparsely populated areas, and receding the Mall to the federal government can still satisfy the requirements for a federal Capitol outside of a state jurisdiction. The framers certainly did not anticipate a majority minority city to spring up around the national Capitol and encompass as much land and as many citizens who are taxed without representation as it presently does.
Yeah, I’ve always been a bit surprised it got so populated. I’m not sure what the Framers had in mind for occupying all that land, but the Constitution does limit the Federal District to 10 miles square and the original pre-VA retrocession DC took the maximum space, which included the pre-existing cities of Georgetown and Alexandria. Like I said elsewhere I think the original plan was for residents of those cities to vote for federal representation in their respective states. If I had my way from the beginning there would be no permanent residents. The only people domiciled within the Seat of Government would be federal officials and employees with permanent legal residences elsewhere.
Seems to me you could do that by shrinking the capitol district to the mall, capitol ground, WH, and such. Your “Vatican-like” enclave.
I still don’t think a single city-state makes a lot of sense, plus still the historical and constitutional issues.
DC a little smaller than RI. Would divvying the district into 2 cities make a difference in terms of your expressed aesthetic preference? If not, how many municipalities would make statehood for those folks acceptable to you?
Do there have to be small towns (ie, white folks) to qualify as a state? If so, why not big cities (of which, Wyoming has none)?
Of course I don’t see why this personal preference on your part trumps equal rights for those Americans, but wondering how far it goes.
I don’t know if a couple cities would do the trick, but I do generally think of states as self-contained entities of the urban-rural spectrum. Every state has that to some degree, yes even Wyoming. I’m thinking of the instances when some local governments, including here in MA, experience massive failure and the state with greater resources has to come in and manage. A single city that is also its own state does not have that backstop.
Sounds like you are OK with “state-cities” like Wyoming (states with pops equal to a medium-sized city), but not “city-states.” Seems kinda arbitrary to me.
Now you introduce the notion that you only get to be a state if you have “rural” parts. Another whiteness thing. Obviously, Wyoming is real America versus the degenerate District of Columbia.
That is why (right?) we need to give white voters extra clout in Congress and the Electoral College, to protect America from all those anchor babies whose parents snuck over on ships from Africa 200 years ago.
BTW the largest city in Wyoming is small. A bit bigger than Brookline by population, but a lot bigger by area.
No other state in the Union lacks an actual big city.
If you want all states to have a range of the American experience, well, just merge Wyoming with the District, problem solved.
Thanks folks, I’m here all week.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I don’t care what population numbers are and your snark does not advance the argument. At this point I must make like a Prime Minister during Questions Time and simply say that I refer my honourable friend to comments I have previously made on this matter. Not sure what you have against WY and rural is an economic term, not a racial one. I absolutely do not believe states need a certain quota of white people.
It is worth mentioning that an enormous portion of DC was “worthless” swamp and “wastelands” at the time it was given. My understanding (from my history classes) is that both MD and VA were eager to unload land that they viewed as a burden on an “unsuspecting” federal government. Georgetown and Alexandria were very much the exception.
The climate is absurdly hot and humid, and malaria was huge problem for much of DC’s history.
At least one site (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-philly-lost-the-nations-capital-to-washington) argues that a significant motivation for locating the District at the MD/VA border was to make it closer to the slave-holding states and therefore less likely to be influenced by northern abolitionists:
I think you dismiss the role of slavery in these matter too easily.
Yes, the location was partly slavery-influenced My point was that slavery is not why the Seat of Government was intended to be a non-state exclusive federal jurisdiction.
I have an idea on how to simplify taxation, so only businesses only need to pay taxes. All money flows through them, and they set wages and prices, so why go anywhere else to get tax revenue? My idea is that rather than taxing profits, we tax revenue, and there is no exemption for resale, etc. The tax collection would be the same as the profit percentage that a business is already adding.
Democracy, then, would not be battles about how to raise the money, but about how to spend it. However, this idea makes the claim ‘no taxation without representation’ somewhat obsolete, at least in the traditional sense. “No spending without representation!” would be more accurate.
Since we are all consumers, whatever we consume is automatically taxed, and since the rich consume more, they will pay more taxes, so it it progressive, despite being a flat tax, in a weird way.
This approach does remove one of the main complaints of DC. However, they and Puerto Rico should have full citizenship status anyway. Separate but equal systems don’t work.
I love it. Touché!