By Nathan Barton
The Fifty States are sovereign entities, states (or nations) with all the good AND bad that status implies and has demonstrated throughout the centuries. And they are states which have chosen, for various reasons, to allow some of that sovereignty to be exercised by a common “federal” government. Which has then turned rebellious and traitorous against the sources of its power and its employers, those very States. And now, more and more, we see government, media, celebrities, and academia turning against the very existence of those States, claiming that they are no longer needed or viable, that they are harmful, and a waste of resources.
While the idea is relatively new in the Fifty States – as far as public perception, at least – it has been common throughout history. Just as federal unions were and continue to be common in the world, the “United States of America” (the Fifty States) share their status with the Provinces of Canada, which joined together about 150 years ago, the States of Australia, the Helvetian Confederation (Switzerland), the United Mexican States, and a few others. It is not an idea which time has gone. Rather, it is an idea whose real time is coming. That was the goal, at one time, of the European Union, and may yet again be, at least for part of that. It is an idea which seems to be reborn in the United Kingdom.
But here in the Fifty States, it is reasonable to say that there is indeed a “War on the States.” Here are some recent examples. The Washington Post published an opinion piece about how state boundaries should be redrawn today. As if they were of no real meaning, as if there is no difference from one place to another. Mish commented on this, pooh-poohing the idea. It is fun to look at the map, though.
The map actually (assuming I am counting right) has 53 states: plus Alaska and Hawaii (presumed that each remains intact) would give us 55 states.
First, this is the same way that we have seen other modern social, society-destroying movements start. The Electoral College cannot be attacked directly; the votes are not there, as virtually every state with LESS than the median population will fail to ratify such a massive constitutional amendment. So instead, attack the very idea of states. This process has worked on such things as divorce, “homosexual marriage,” transgender (cross-dresser’s) bathroom “rights” and other “revolutions.”
Two things I like about this: first is that vast “56th Area” which includes Montana and large parts of the Dakotas, Wyoming, and pieces of five other states. Let us christen that “Libertania” and NOT HAVE a government (or at least nothing above the county or local town level, if that)! I’d be willing to give up ANY representation to Washington, and depend on the nukes at the bases in Montana and the Dakotas to keep us from getting swallowed by Canada or anyone else. Second: NO District of Columbia. Let those inside the current truncated square of DC vote for senators and representatives together with the rest of DC-Baltimore and have done with it.
But fun as either of those things would be, I’ll oppose this. Even a mutual agreement between two states to transfer land from one to another should be viewed with great suspicion.
What might really work would require a permissive policy on pieces of states seceding from their present state. We’ve done this before. Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820; West Virginia from Virginia in 1863. It can be argued that Vermont seceded from New York in 1776 or 1778, and that Kentucky departed from Virginia in 1787. Why should not Arizona del Sur leave Arizona? Or Jefferson depart from California (and Oregon). Or the Black Hills from South Dakota and Wyoming? second: a clear understanding that states can agree to trade land (and population). Would it make sense for Nevada and California to swap the Sierras for Las Vegas? Or Indiana to trade Gary and vicinity for parts of Illinois down by Cairo? Or Minnesota to trade Wisconsin Duluth and the Masabi Range for a couple of counties just east of the Twin Cities? Or Missouri could trade Kansas City to Kansas for higher draft picks for the St. Louis pro sports teams? Sounds silly? And intended to be. Such trades, of course, to be acceptable to government, at least 21st Century FedGov style government, should be done only by force of arms, with a fair amount of blood shed. (Being satirical here, folks.)