It’s morning again in America. Trump has reclaimed the presidency, and a popular vote majority supercharges his mandate. But morning means it’s time to get to work. While we may now be unburdened by the disaster of a Harris administration, big changes are necessary. For the past sixteen years, we’ve heard the fantasies of the leftists’ plans to build America back to what they say is “better.” They had some big ideas, such as adding two new states: Puerto Rico and Washington, DC (as if there’s no need for a federal district). That, along with rescinding the filibuster, they dreamed, would ensure leftist dominance ad infinitum. One day they’ll be back in the ascendancy. I’d like to think not but realistically we have to prepare for that. We should head them off with a constitutional amendment.
My big idea for the 28th Amendment is that it sets the USA’s states at 50. No more new states. First, let’s break up with Puerto Rico. Over the years, they’ve had four referenda – in 1967, 1993, 1998, 2012 – in which Puerto Ricans voted against becoming the USA’s 51st state. Two others were either boycotted by the opposition or barely passed. If we were dating, we’d have to conclude that Puerto Rico is just not that into us. It’s time we start seeing different people. We can still be friends but “just friends.” No more benefits.
Then comes the fun part. First, all six New England states should be consolidated into one: the State of New England. No more separate Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This wouldn’t be the first time New England was united. From 1686 to 1689 it was “the Dominion of New England.” That could have been its permanent status if not for the Glorious Revolution in England. Think of it: we have six New England states instead of one, because King William crossed the English Channel to seize control of England. I think it’s time to rectify that accident of history. If you argue that each New England state possesses a unique history and culture, the same can be said for western North Carolina from the “Research Triangle” but no one is proposing the creation of the state of West North Carolina. Besides, each of the New England states emerged from the Puritan “City Upon a Hill.” Don’t try to debate me on this. I hold a Ph.D. in colonial New England history. New England should be one state.
Then, moving south, we spin off New York City from the rest of the state. Let’s call the new state, now free of the Big Apple, “Seneca.” Next, Delaware and Maryland should be merged. They’re both small and Delaware resembles a bite taken out of Maryland. The latter state was named for Henrietta Maria of France, wife of King Charles I of England, a petty tyrant whom even the English got so exasperated with that they cut off his head. Do we really want a state named after someone like that? Baltimore, Delaware can be the joint state’s capital.
If you’re thinking, now we’re down five states, and I promised to keep us at 50 states, we have some sundering to do. Florida should be divided in two at the peninsula. I lived in Florida, and can attest it’s already two distinct regions, with the South in northern Florida and South Florida oblivious to it. Let’s call the new state, from Jacksonville westward across the pan-handle, not “South Alabama,” although I like it, but “Seminolia.” “Florida” would consist solely of the peninsula with the capital in Orlando. Everyone would be happy.
We should have three Texases. Texas is simply that good. I hate to split the original state, especially since I graduated high school there and took Texas history. It is, after all the “lone star state” but it’s a necessary sacrifice for the country. Besides, they have enough people to create three populous states: East Texas with Houston, North Texas with Dallas-Fort Worth and Amarillo, and West Texas with San Antonia, Austin, and El Paso. They’ll have to settle who gets custody of their lone star.
Finally, California gets split into three. I have also lived in California and it deserves to be split up, along the lines of the Cal 3 proposal of 2018. This would be an act of mercy to the reasonable citizens of Orange County, the San Diego suburbs, and the long-suffering folks of Fresno and the Inland Empire in the new state of South California. They’ll be freed up to elect a competent state government. We can hope.
That’s fifty states, with more equitable representation in the Senate. This arrangement is fairer than the current accident-of-history map we now have. Additionally – and this is a secret just between you (conservative reader) and me, so shhh – it’d be a boon to the Republican Party. Instead of twelve senators from New England, eleven of whom are Democrats (or worse), there would be only two. (We won’t miss Susan Collins that much.) Plus, this results in fewer iron-clad electoral votes for the Dems baked into the electoral college cake. The shrunken New York State/City would remain solidly Democrat, like the today’s New York State, but the new Seneca would be a battleground, like Pennsylvania, with winnable electoral votes. With Maryland and Delaware combined, we get only two Democrat senators instead of four. Both Seminolia and the rump Florida would typically lean red. The new tripartite Texas would normally yield six Republican senators instead of just two. Admittedly, two of the three new Californias would be sending us Kamala Harris-caliber senators, regrettably, but the new South California would be purple. Perhaps a new Ronald Reagan could emerge from it.
That’s it. That’s my big idea. Now, someone fluent in legalese write it up as a constitutional amendment, and someone else with a ton of political capital, like someone who has just won an election, champion its adoption.
P.S. Please delete the second-to-last paragraph so the left doesn’t catch on.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Domestic Operations Branch. Bureau of Graphics. 7/31/1944-9/15/1945,” and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
One can but choose to surmise the above essay was intended as a satire.
Because the alternative explanation can only be that a putative “Conservative” advocates for a molestation of the Constitution comparable to the various and nefarious schemes which Progressivists have pushed forward from time to time. It even utilizes the same excuse with which Progressivists seek to exonerate their schemes, to wit, nailing the swing of the pendulum at one particular point in time which is favorable to them, no matter the damage done to the hidden mechanism which moves the aforementioned device.
Like all well-done parody, it almost took me in. Kudos.
I will not argue from a historical viewpoint. In fact, I will not argue at all. Although I also have a higher degree (M.Phil.) in history it was in Medieval, not American. I am, however, a sentimentalist and suffer from a false nostalgia for a past that I have never experienced. It comes from listening to my father’s stories. Along these lines I would like to suggest my own reorganization of the states.
First, let us revive the lost state of Franklin. The “Over-the-mountain men” would be celebrated in this way for their contribution to the victory at King’s Mountain during the Revolution. I must admit, however, that I prefer Andrew Pickens to John Sevier as an example of a western founder and patriot. I got the impression, after reading his biography, that Pickens was a man of integrity, though he appears a rather dour Calvinist in his portrait. Indeed, Pickens reminds me of the unfairly maligned Thaddeus Stevens, another dour man of integrity in American history (another impression gained from reading his biography). But, back to Sevier–I like him because he rescued Bonnie Kate by hauling her over a stockade wall during an attack. They later married. I have this (false?) idea that Bonnie Kate was a tall, magnificent, fiery redhead–sort of like Elizabeth Berniers, the independent wandering woman who befriended George Borrow and is described in that author’s autobiographical writings.
Second, I agree that New York City should be a separate state (remember Breslin and Mailer?) but the whole area should be renamed Brooklyn. Well, because…and while we’re at it, let’s bring back the Dodgers.
Third, loving accidents of history, I don’t think New England should be united into one state. In fact, I would like to see two more states added, Plymouth and New Haven, after those lost colonies. Plymouth would be small, and modern-day pedestrians would be able to emulate Queen Maeve’s messenger, MacRoth, who was so swift he could “cross Ireland in a day”, by crossing the state of Plymouth in a day.
Finally, regarding a great state of New England–I don’t think it would work out–I understand that there are too many New York Yankee fans living west of the Connecticut River.
I just noticed that most of my proposals involve reviving lost things. Of course, that would just mean bringing them back to earth–because, according to Ariosto, they still exist on the Moon along with Orlando’s wits, the Kingdom of the Visigoths, most of the films of Theda Bara, and probably 90% of all Classical Latin and Greek texts.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Some good ideas there. But, remember, we have to keep to 50 states max. So if you’re going to add Franklin, etc, you’ll have to merge other states.
We can’t mess up the flag. 🙂
Yes, I have added four states–Brooklyn, Plymouth, Franklin, and New Haven. Perhaps the Spirits of the Moon, the Selenites, the Children of Diana (whatever they call themselves) would be disconcerted by the vast metaphysical emptiness imposed on the Lunar landscape by the return of the last three states to our world. A fair trade could be made to these liminal folk. Would there be four states willing to move their location to the Moon? There are places in geography that are more “states of mind” than actual locations in time and place. Consider: the 5th Province of Ireland or the 5th Borough of New York City. Concrete empiricists might claim that these are just Meath/West Meath in central Ireland and Duke’s county on Nantucket respectively, but I prefer to think not. I believe these types of places actualize when an individual recalls an epiphany or a “joy more poignant than grief” that occurred in the land associated with them (Ireland and New York City [aka Brooklyn]). Many times, such moments are associated with trees: an ailanthus growing in an asphalt crack in an empty light industry parking lot on a Sunday August afternoon in Queens south of the LIRR that waits patiently for the workweek to begin on Monday; a certain horse chestnut tree blooming in May near the wall of the American embassy in Phoenix Park in Dublin; or the eponymous Raintree evoked in Ross Lockridge’s tender novel, especially when Johnny Shawnessy awakes from an afternoon slumber and sees Nell Gaither on the other side of the river (Raintree County is to Henry County, Indiana what Logres is to Britain). Would the citizens of certain states be more desirous of living in a “State of Mind” on the Moon than, let’s face it, this “Vale of Tears” and, antepenultimately (I use this awkward adverb because making quit of this world is not the End. There follows both Judgement and Eternity. The co-director of the NICE, Frost, was gravely wrong in bringing himself from Logical Positivism to the “open void”) “no abiding place” which is the disagreeable reality of the here and now? It is possible. Indeed, I have often heard phrases like “A California State of Mind” or “a New York State of Mind” that would support this possibility. Perhaps, in this way, a fair balance that satisfies many could be negotiated. These newly lost states would settle in nicely on the Moon between Lotharingia and the library where Aristotle’s Treatise on Comedy rests on a dusty shelf.
Again, thank you for hearing me out.
Excuse me, I meant to say: “sixth borough of New York City”, not five which it has in all their beloved vitality and history.
I like your thinking except for Texas. Leave us alone. We already have to put up with the secessionists here and those who think we still belong to Mexico. I don’t care if El Paso is in a different time zone or that its 750 miles from me. It’sTexas and that’s enough. Oh, relabling Dallas as South Oklahoma does have a lot of appeal here in Houston but we want Fort Worth.
I’m sympathetic. Maybe instead of dividing up Texas, we make an East Oregon and and East Washington. We need two more states to keep the required 50.
“Next, Delaware and Maryland should be merged. They’re both small and Delaware resembles a bite taken out of Maryland. The latter state was named for Henrietta Maria of France, wife of King Charles I of England, a petty tyrant whom even the English got so exasperated with that they cut off his head. Do we really want a state named after someone like that? “….wishing you the kind of Christmas that Oliver Cromwell would want to outlaw
The State of New York is not blue. If you remove the major cities of NYC, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo , the State is Red. For decades we in western NY have wanted to separate NYC from the rest of the state. Our culture is small town, rural, agricultural, land conservation, family oriented and conservative. Unfortunately, without an electoral college within the state, we are controlled by the far left. We have groups working to break off NYC and Albany but with mob democrat rule, it won’t happen