The Argument Against D.C. Statehood Is Rooted in Racism

[SummerMadness]

The Argument Against D.C. Statehood Is Rooted in Racism

In February of 1873, James Shepherd Pike, a radical Republican journalist and longtime advocate for black suffrage, was assigned by the New York Tribune to cover a Deep South state legislature in the midst of Reconstruction. At the time, governments across the region, thanks to the policies enacted by the federal government, had begun to see an influx of black men among their ranks, and Pike sought to explore the reality of such a swift change of fortune. The resulting work was Pike’s infamous 1874 book, The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Government. As he detailed over the course of 300 pages, Pike viewed the governance of a southern legislature by black politicians as one of the most egregious forms of democracy he’d ever witnessed. Citing widespread corruption amongst the black legislators and their general disenchantment with their white counterparts, Pike posited the grand experiment of Reconstruction was a failure.

The underlying fear—from the perspective of the white politicians and news moguls and businessmen who backed their efforts—was that a government run in part by black citizens would be a government wealthy whites could not control. To have a seminal work from an abolitionist such as Pike to point to was the intellectual excuse for stealing back these governmental bodies. It would be nice to believe that such arguments have been relegated to the history books since Durden’s debunking and the civil rights gains of the 1960s, but, like the reporting in Pike’s book, that wouldn’t be close to the truth.

 

[sdowney717]

The reason was to keep seat of the Federal Government not beholding to state politics.
State rights were very important to the people of that time, and still are. A neutral meeting ground was important to the success of the United States.

 

[SummerMadness]

The reason was to keep seat of the Federal Government not beholding to state politics.
State rights were very important to the people of that time, and still are. A neutral meeting ground was important to the success of the United States.

This argument doesn't hold water because state politics will not affect the federal government. Then make the White House and Capitol buildings as federal lands and make where the residents live a state... like what's already in the proposed bill.

 

[JohnAshton]

. . . as is the argument for statehood for D.C.

The Argument Against D.C. Statehood Is Rooted in Racism

 

[sdowney717]

This argument doesn't hold water because state politics will not affect the federal government. Then make the White House and Capitol buildings as federal lands and make where the residents live a state... like what's already in the proposed bill.

When the Federal Government was setup, there was lots of friction among the states. It got worse, then the civil war happened. Keeping District of Columbia a non state was deliberate and a good idea at the time. Personally I think it should stay as it was founded.
People who move and live there know what they are getting as far as government., been like this for over 200 years. IT would take a constitutional amendment to change, and its not going to happen.
Black and white have always lived there, there is no racism, so if white people move out and black people grow in number, now it is racist?

 

[JohnAshton]

Nope, it WOULD NOT require a constitutional amendment to make D.C. a state.

It was created by congressional feat and can be changed by such.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Why not just make it a part of Maryland again?

 

[JohnAshton]

That, Lazarus Short, can be done by congressional and Maryland law.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This argument doesn't hold water because state politics will not affect the federal government. Then make the White House and Capitol buildings as federal lands and make where the residents live a state... like what's already in the proposed bill.

How about we add those residents to Maryland and/or Virginia instead of coming up with a whole new state? Additionally, How about we move the seat of government to a new place far removed from the current Washington DC., perhaps somewhere more centrally located, and not allow residents to move there so we avoid the current situation?

 

[cow451]

How about we add those residents to Maryland and/or Virginia instead of coming up with a whole new state? Additionally, How about we move the seat of government to a new place far removed from the current Washington DC., perhaps somewhere more centrally located, and not allow residents to move there so we avoid the current situation?

We could move it to Jerusalem so it would be close to the King’s embassy.

 

[miggles]

"The GOP's anti-urban agenda takes many forms, but it always tracks back to wealthy whites' fear of losing power."

wealthy white democrats, that is.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why not just make it a part of Maryland again?

Virginia already got their piece back…

 

[Lazarus Short]

Virginia already got their piece back…

I didn't know they ever had a piece, but I suppose it would be a result of the river's wandering. Around here, a major bend in the Missouri River, Jackass Bend, got shortened, leaving a chunk of Jackson County north of the river, surrounded by Clay County. In like manner there are two small pieces of Clay County south of the river...

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I didn't know they ever had a piece, but I suppose it would be a result of the river's wandering. Around here, a major bend in the Missouri River, Jackass Bend, got shortened, leaving a chunk of Jackson County north of the river, surrounded by Clay County. In like manner there are two small pieces of Clay County south of the river...

Alexandria was originally part of the District of Columbia but was returned to Virginia back in 1846-47.

 

[cow451]

Alexandria was originally part of the District of Columbia but was returned to Virginia back in 1846-47.

Alexandria’s must have felt rejected