From: Michael S. Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 09:03:10 MST
KPJ wrote:
>
> IAAI Michael S. Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> |
> |"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> |>
> |> Hello,
> |>
> |> Will the United States have more than 50 states? There are procedures
> |> to admit states into the union.
> |>
> |> The flag does not have to change.
> |
> |Traditionally it does, since the flag laws say that the stars represent
> |the number of states. I personally would bet on there being fewer states
> |in the future (there are secessionist movements in Hawaii and Alaska).
>
> What about the last time some states tried to leave the federation?
> South vs North, and all that. They did not succeed, AFAIK.
> Feel free to elaborate on why secessionists would have more luck today.
Primarily because there is no slavery issue for the remaining americans
to get indignant over, and at least in the case of Hawaii a good case
can be made that it was illegally annexed anyways, at least done by
bully tactics, similar reasons by which we snagged the Panama Canal
Zone, and which were later used in propaganda to justify returning the
canal to the Panamanians. Alaska was not one of the original colonies,
so there is less sentimental attachment, and the propaganda could be
that it "only cost us $2 million bucks anyways, so its hardly worth much
to bother about".
Moreover, it was far more socially acceptable to order other peoples
kids to their deaths 140 years ago for abstract reasons than it is
today. While in the case of Alaska at least there would likely be a
fight due to the value of its strategic resources (oil), it's such a
large area that it would be impossible for an occupation force to take
and police with any degree of success. Its terrain lends itself well to
guerrilla insurgency forces.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:29 MST