Six more? Puerto Rico, DC, British Columbia, Baja California, Cuba, and...?
It's interesting to see all the areas worldwide that have, at one time or another and with varying degrees of seriousness, been proposed as new US states. See:
My guess would be DC, the 4 unincorporated, organized territories ( Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands), and American Samoa (the only substantially inhabited unincorporated, unorganized territory).
I was a bit disappointed when the Brazilian soccer squad won their fifth world title and didn't put the stars in a Southern Cross formation on their uniform.
The blue area seems to be a little small. Why do you say "Of course if we adopted it, some right-wingers would say it means were going commie, or something like it."? I have seen a lot of original 13-star circular flags in the possession of people that would self-describe as being on the right.
I think it's because of who proposed it: the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, according to Wikipedia in the "51st State" article.
I like the arrangement, too, but I can see why its provenance might taint it in some eyes. That's unfortunate; it's a much more pleasant arrangement than the one we currently have.
I could also see people objecting to changing the US's hundred-odd-year tradition of having ugly and grating arrangements of stars. :) And the circular star arrangement _is_ something one tends to see flown by sinister US successor states like those in _Fallout_ and _Jericho_...
The New Progressive Party is the right-wing party in Puerto Rico. It was founded by Republicans and most of its leadership is affiliated with the Republicans.
It's the left-wing parties of Puerto Rico that are the ones that favor free association or independence instead of statehood.
After reading the article I was going to suggest the same thing. I think the radial symmetry is much more pleasing and I like the nod to the original 13 star flag.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides for a federal district (distinct from the states) to serve as the seat of government.
The location of the federal district was a result of a compromise between Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson. The U.S. capital city was New York at the time. Jefferson didn't want the federal government controlled by one of the largest Northern states. So he struck a bargain with Hamilton, agreeing to support Hamilton's plan for the federal government to assume the states' debts in exchange for the creation of a federal district apart from the power of any one of the states of the union (and further south).
I understand the history, but it hardly seems relevant to the current situation. Having the seat of federal power exist in a state-less region makes sense, but having half a million people live there too doesn't.
And why no Senators? It's not like DC would be the least populous state, yet I don't see many campaigns to strip Wyoming of its senators.
Seems like most of the opposition is from Republicans who recognize that DC would almost certainly elect liberal Democrats. And that's just ridiculously unfair.
I think the bigger problem is that we let people make permanent residence in area that was designed not to be part of a state. Perhaps they could shrink the DC area down and give the residential land back to the appropriate states.
36 comments
[ 477 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadIt's interesting to see all the areas worldwide that have, at one time or another and with varying degrees of seriousness, been proposed as new US states. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Brazil
I was a bit disappointed when the Brazilian soccer squad won their fifth world title and didn't put the stars in a Southern Cross formation on their uniform.
Neither one are patterns he put into the algorithm.
Of course if we adopted it, some right-wingers would say it means were going commie, or something like it.
I like the arrangement, too, but I can see why its provenance might taint it in some eyes. That's unfortunate; it's a much more pleasant arrangement than the one we currently have.
I could also see people objecting to changing the US's hundred-odd-year tradition of having ugly and grating arrangements of stars. :) And the circular star arrangement _is_ something one tends to see flown by sinister US successor states like those in _Fallout_ and _Jericho_...
It's the left-wing parties of Puerto Rico that are the ones that favor free association or independence instead of statehood.
For those interested: it comes from this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States
which has a timeline of all past flags, too.
The location of the federal district was a result of a compromise between Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson. The U.S. capital city was New York at the time. Jefferson didn't want the federal government controlled by one of the largest Northern states. So he struck a bargain with Hamilton, agreeing to support Hamilton's plan for the federal government to assume the states' debts in exchange for the creation of a federal district apart from the power of any one of the states of the union (and further south).
You can read more about the reasons for removing the capital from state territory here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Act
(Full disclosure: I wouldn't mind Eleanor Holmes Norton getting a vote in the House, but I would be against DC having senators.)
And why no Senators? It's not like DC would be the least populous state, yet I don't see many campaigns to strip Wyoming of its senators.
Seems like most of the opposition is from Republicans who recognize that DC would almost certainly elect liberal Democrats. And that's just ridiculously unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...