Statehood or not to statehood

[Gig em Aggies]

Recently watched a video on YouTube about a movement gaining in DC to make it the so called 51st state but what strikes me as just a mere curiosity is what if we have a trade off. So DC wants "in" on statehood but other states want "out" so why not choose to replace one of the "out" states with DC.

"Out" States: Alaska, Vermont, California, New Hampshire, and Texas

Proposed "In" States: DC, Puerto Rico, Lakota, Franklin, Jefferson, Superior, and Sequoyah to name a few.

Me personally I wouldn't mind as long as the majority of people voted for it. Because citing this current election and what the US has been going through with its inept leadership I understand people's feelings about leaving, one state and a proposed state in particular I can see trading places the state of Texas and Lakota have people vote to say if the US congress were to allow Texas to leave then they would need to approve the statehood of Lakota and the location of it could be where Montana touchs with Idaho and the eastern border could be a straight line up through the state where gallatin county touches Wyoming and go all the way to the Canadian border. Or Lakota could be made out of small pieces of Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. But all in all I know this isn't gonna happen this is just out of mere curiosity.

[The Federal Union of Novorossiya]

The problem with a lot of this is that the constitution says you can not make a state in a state- a lot of ours like West Virginia, Maine, etc. were created unconstitutionally, but because there was a lot of support for it, it was considered "ok". It'd be harder to find that kind of disregard for constitutional law in the Republican Congress of today.

[USS Monitor]

Hawaii has a secessionist movement.

[Gig em Aggies]

Hawaii has a secessionist movement.

Is this a Suprise to you? Or you just yanking chains.

[USS Monitor]

The problem with a lot of this is that the constitution says you can not make a state in a state- a lot of ours like West Virginia, Maine, etc. were created unconstitutionally, but because there was a lot of support for it, it was considered "ok". It'd be harder to find that kind of disregard for constitutional law in the Republican Congress of today.

States can't do it unilaterally, but where does it say Congress can't allow it?

[USS Monitor]

Hawaii has a secessionist movement.

Is this a Suprise to you? Or you just yanking chains.

Wondering why you didn't mention it in the OP when you were listing "out" states.

[Eol Sha]

I support the DC and Puerto Rican statehood movements and pretty much oppose all attempts to break up the currently existing states.

[Eol Sha]

The problem with a lot of this is that the constitution says you can not make a state in a state- a lot of ours like West Virginia, Maine, etc. were created unconstitutionally, but because there was a lot of support for it, it was considered "ok". It'd be harder to find that kind of disregard for constitutional law in the Republican Congress of today.

States can't do it unilaterally, but where does it say Congress can't allow it?

According to the 1845 annexation agreement, Texas could theoretically split itself up into six different states.

[Post War America]

I would be open to the statehoods of Puerto Rico and DC, for far too long they have been fucked over by their colonial status (especially Puerto Rico). I'm a little fuzzier on the other proposed states seen as they are already part of some of the 50 states.

[USS Monitor]

I support the DC and Puerto Rican statehood movements and pretty much oppose all attempts to break up the currently existing states.

Why? Historically, splitting states hasn't caused many problems, and it was sometimes used to facilitate the antislavery movement. West Virginia is forgivable as a wartime measure, Vermont is awesome, and Maine is harmless.

[Eol Sha]

I support the DC and Puerto Rican statehood movements and pretty much oppose all attempts to break up the currently existing states.

Why? Historically, splitting states hasn't caused many problems, and it was sometimes used to facilitate the antislavery movement. West Virginia is forgivable as a wartime measure, Vermont is awesome, and Maine is harmless.

Vermont didn't split off from a state. It's circumstances were rather different from Maine. Let alone West Virginia.

I oppose said movements because they are usually ideologically-based and because the country has worked fine without the need to split states apart. As far as I've seen, most intra-state secessionist movements are made up of whiners pissed that they can't get their way with the state government.

[USS Monitor]

I would be open to the statehoods of Puerto Rico and DC, for far too long they have been fucked over by their colonial status (especially Puerto Rico). I'm a little fuzzier on the other proposed states seen as they are already part of some of the 50 states.

DC should be given back to Maryland if they don't like being a federal territory. Virginia already got their part of it back.

And Puerto Rico just needs to make up their mind what they want. One big reason they're not a state is they haven't made up their minds that they want it.

[Post War America]

I would be open to the statehoods of Puerto Rico and DC, for far too long they have been fucked over by their colonial status (especially Puerto Rico). I'm a little fuzzier on the other proposed states seen as they are already part of some of the 50 states.

DC should be given back to Maryland if they don't like being a federal territory. Virginia already got their part of it back.

And Puerto Rico just needs to make up their mind what they want. One big reason they're not a state is they haven't made up their minds that they want it.

Fair enough I guess, but regardless ending the colonial status of those places is necessary.

[The Burgundy Shore]

DC in, then perhaps fuse Maine and Massachusetts back together? It's a shame that Vermont and New Hampshire are in the way - perhaps fuse Vermont, Maine, NH into 'New England' or something, then toss in Puerto Rico for extra measure to keep the nice round 50.

Of course, none of this would ever be possible, unless the vast majority of each state and proposed state wanted it, but even then - why? 50 is a nice round number, and you'd have to reprint all the goddam maps.

[USS Monitor]

I oppose said movements because they are usually ideologically-based and because the country has worked fine without the need to split states apart. As far as I've seen, most intra-state secessionist movements are made up of whiners pissed that they can't get their way with the state government.

Why should people have to put up with a state government that isn't representing their interests? Assuming there is a large enough group of them to make a reasonable sized state, that is.

[Eol Sha]

I oppose said movements because they are usually ideologically-based and because the country has worked fine without the need to split states apart. As far as I've seen, most intra-state secessionist movements are made up of whiners pissed that they can't get their way with the state government.

Why should people have to put up with a state government that isn't representing their interests? Assuming there is a large enough group of them to make a reasonable sized state, that is.

As far as I'm concerned, unless the government is actively persecuting you secession of any sort is unjustifiable.

[USS Monitor]

DC in, then perhaps fuse Maine and Massachusetts back together? It's a shame that Vermont and New Hampshire are in the way - perhaps fuse Vermont, Maine, NH into 'New England' or something, then toss in Puerto Rico for extra measure to keep the nice round 50.

That would not work at all. Everyone up north would flip their shit when Massachusetts tries to impose gun control.

[Yorkers]

I'm fine with breaking some of our existing states into new ones, but I am wholly opposed to statehood for Puerto Rico or Guam.

[Yorkers]

I oppose said movements because they are usually ideologically-based and because the country has worked fine without the need to split states apart. As far as I've seen, most intra-state secessionist movements are made up of whiners pissed that they can't get their way with the state government.

All secessionist movements were done people pissed they couldn't get their way in government.

[Eol Sha]

I oppose said movements because they are usually ideologically-based and because the country has worked fine without the need to split states apart. As far as I've seen, most intra-state secessionist movements are made up of whiners pissed that they can't get their way with the state government.

All secessionist movements were done people pissed they couldn't get their way in government.

Which is why I oppose most of them with the aforementioned exception.

[Yorkers]

All secessionist movements were done people pissed they couldn't get their way in government.

Which is why I oppose most of them with the aforementioned exception.

Your opposition is inconsistent.

I oppose said movements

Except when when you make exceptions for it.

States and territories have been split several times throughout our history. Virginia used to own what is today Kentucky. The Carolinas and Dakotas used to be one. Tennessee was once part of North Carolina. All land south of Tennessee and east of the Mississippi River was once part of Georgia. Ohio used to be variously divided between Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Arizona and New Mexico used to be a single entity. Nebraska was nearly split in two because of a debate over the location of the capital.

A lot of state boundaries are rather arbitrary and don't reflect the actual cultural or economic borders of a region, and it's because of this, some people feel like they have little representation in their state government, hence the desire for a split.

There is nothing wrong with this.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I'm fine with breaking some of our existing states into new ones, but I am wholly opposed to statehood for Puerto Rico or Guam.

Too many brown Catholics for you?

[Eol Sha]

Which is why I oppose most of them with the aforementioned exception.

Your opposition is inconsistent.

My exception is persecution so, no, I'm not being inconsistent.

I oppose said movements

Except when when you make exceptions for it.

States and territories have been split several times throughout our history. Virginia used to own what is today Kentucky. The Carolinas and Dakotas used to be one. Tennessee was once part of North Carolina. All land south of Tennessee and east of the Mississippi River was once part of Georgia. Ohio used to be variously divided between Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Arizona and New Mexico used to be a single entity. Nebraska was nearly split in two because of a debate over the location of the capital.

A lot of state boundaries are rather arbitrary and don't reflect the actual cultural or economic borders of a region, and it's because of this, some people feel like they have little representation in their state government, hence the desire for a split.

There is nothing wrong with this.

The difference being that the last time a state seceded from another was during the Civil War over 150 years ago. Things have changed since them and I see little reason for sections of a state to split off and create a new state.

[Pope Joan]

It might be harder for Maryland police to do "hot pursuit" killings in DC after statehood, I would hope.

[Luziyca]

If the people want to be a state, I wouldn't object. If they want to leave peacefully and Congress lets them, I am okay with that.