Reply to DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here. [/quote]

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.[/quote]

The founding principles of our country?  Like the documents where the founders expressly decreed that DC would be a federal district and not a state?[/quote]

Are you really familiar with the history of the removal of federal representation for DC residents?

It wasn't some unanimous decision whatsoever, even at its inception, it was recognized as problematic. It becomes more problematic as the population of DC grows, such that more people live in DC than some states.

https://www.dchistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/10-Debates-Over-Retrocession-by-Mark-David-Richards-16-1.pdf

"Rep. Smilie also raised concerns about the
 time and expense of acting as the District's legis-
 lature and questioned congressional competency
 to legislate for the District. He noted that "the
 trouble and expense would increase with the
 increasing number of inhabitants."12 He again
 warned about the loss of political rights: "Here,
 58 E Washington History, Spring/Summer 2004
 the citizens would be governed by laws, in the
 making of which they have no voice - by laws
 not made with their own consent, but by the
 United States for them - by men who have not
 the interest in the laws made that legislators
 ought always to possess - by men also not
 acquainted with the minute and local interests
 of the place, coming, as they did, from distances
 of 500 to 1,000 miles."13"

" Representative Benjamin Huger of
 South Carolina (Federalist) pointed out that just
 "because [District residents] are now disenfran-
 chised of their rights, it does not follow that they
 are always to remain so." Huger looked forward
 to the time when the inhabitants through their
 numbers and riches would be entitled to repre-
 sentation. With respect to their local concerns,
 he argued that when they grew more numerous
 and wealthy, "there would be no difficulty in giv-
 ing them a Territorial Legislature."14

It wasn't even certain at the time that congress would remain in DC

" Besides, he asked, what obligation
 had Congress to remain here if the area was
 receded? "Unfix the Capitol, and recede the Dis-
 trict, and, believe me, Congress will soon take
 wings and fly to some other place."16 He, too,
 believed that the establishment of a territorial leg-
 islature would solve the problem"

"Rep. Smilie countered by asking if there had
 ever been a government possessed of unlimited
 power that had not abused it. "You may give them
 a charter," he said, "But of what avail will this be,
 when Congress may take it away at any moment?
 They would continue forever to be ultimately gov-
 erned by a body over whom they had no control."17
 Smilie was not alone in raising concerns and
 proposing retrocession as a possible solution. Rep-
 resentatives from Virginia offered various retro-
 cession options. Representative John Dawson
 (Republican) moved to divide the two questions
 of retroceding the Virginia portion from the
 Maryland portion, while Representative John
 Randolph suggested retroceding all the territory
 except Washington City. Representative John
 Smith (Republican) said that the people of
 Alexandria had been "very anxious to be admitted
 into the ten-miles square; and they were admit-
 ted"; therefore, he concluded, they had been
 admitted with their consent. Before he would
 vote for a retrocession proposal, he wanted to be
 sure the people of the District wanted to be retro-
 ceded. With so much debate and so little
 consensus, the resolutions of the retrocession bill
 failed 66 to 26."

Slavery also may have factored into the decision:

"ll the possible arguments for or against retrocession. There
 was some limited discussion that the anti-slavery
 members in the District Committee in Congress
 opposed retrocession because free blacks were not
 allowed to live in Virginia and a smaller District
 might benefit slaveholders because runaways to
 the District, who previously were rarely returned,
 would become more vulnerable. One member of
 Congress mentioned this point in the debate"[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics