President Trump recently said that statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. “would be a disaster.” Click through to watch a video clip and you will see that he didn’t actually say that Puerto Rico or Puerto Rico statehood would be a disaster, but rather claimed that Puerto Rico and D.C. as states would add four Democratic senators to Congress, which would be a disaster. Trump is known for emotionally charged rhetoric and provocative remarks, but let’s look at this one more closely. Does it make sense to say that a new state — any new state — would be a disaster? Have any of the 37 states that have joined the Union since the original 13 colonies brought disaster to the United States?
Have admissions of new states ever been controversial?
The idea of admitting new states has often been controversial. The majority of Americans across the nation have answered surveys on statehood for Puerto Rico positively since the 1960s, but there were many concerns about new states in the past.
States like Colorado and Arizona worried people in the existing states because these places seemed wild and lawless. Sometimes territories actually were wild and lawless. This was a big reason that people living in territories wanted statehood: to help settle the places where they lived and make their lives safer and more stable. At the time some of these states asked for admission, though, some of their fellow Americans complained that the inhabitants of the territories were uncivilized hooligans.
Other states created controversy because they involved politically charged questions like woman suffrage or slavery. Several states with Mormon populations brought up strong feelings about their laws on polygamy, which were counter to laws in existing states. Hawaii worried some Americans who believed that the people of the Hawaiian territory were communists and that communism would overrun the mainland if Hawaii became a state.
Republicans warned about the “the twin relics of barbarism”: slavery and polygamy, which were legal in a number of states when they applied for admission. There were also states with racist violence, like Oregon and Texas. And quite a few states had wars going on with neighboring states or Native Americans when they requested statehood.
So yes, absolutely, many states have been controversial.
Has the admission of a new state ever been a disaster?
No. Many states have been controversial. Some have been disruptive, although those effects have generally been local. Several states were admitted quickly before an election in hopes of increasing the number of voters for a particular party, and in doing so have clinched an election. Doing so has never given one political party a permanent stronghold or led to any economic or cultural issues of any historical significance.
But admitting new states has always increased the resources and opportunities of the United States, and increased the nation’s stature, increased the prosperity of the new state and therefore the nation as a whole.
Will admitting Puerto Rico as a state be a disaster?
Of course not. This is a ridiculous claim. 32 territories have become states without any disastrous consequences. Puerto Rico, which doesn’t have any wars going on or any relics of barbarism in its legal system, certainly won’t be the first.
In fact, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is an excellent opportunity to add to the nation’s honor by providing the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico with equal rights, cleaning up the colonialism which could also be called a relic of barbarism, and increasing the honor of the United States. Contact your representatives and let them know you want to see them on the right side of history.
One response
–Some Politicians (like Trump) “Generalize” & state: “Puerto Rico will Vote for Democrats, if they become a State”– which is a fallacy not supported by the FACTS/history as this argument has no US Constitutional or factual validity! They distort and blame the victim; want to keep the US Territory of PR (with more US Citizens/Veterans than 21 States) under Federal undemocratic control as they unfairly fail to uphold our core representative democracy values & principles–which is UNAMERICAN! (see below)
+In our Democracy, Individuals Vote their conscious as no one knows how they will Vote… For Example, per our History, Florida has voted for 9 Democrat US Presidents (including: Carter, Clinton, & Obama), and for Republican Presidents (Bush, Trump, etc.). It’s up to political Parties to earn the Votes as no politician should deny Fairness/Federal “consent of the Governed/ Equal Civil Rights to any US Citizens/US Veteran.
+ Plus, today–the PR Governor, Speaker, and Senate President are Republicans.
+STOP providing political distorted excuses that misinform; blame the Victim (PR)!
Facts are: today, millions of US Citizens-Veterans in PR-don’t have full Civil Rights: NO Vote for US President; NO just Representation in US Congress; NO parity in Federal Laws, Programs, or Funding…that other US Citizens fully get; NO permanent “statutory” US Citizenship (even if moving to a State)…; are under unfair Congressional plenary power! Plus, the Federal Government autocratically controls PR’s: Borders, Currency, Laws, Security, Economy, Trade, etc.
++“Puerto Ricans will Vote for Democrats, if they become a State” is a bad/wrong “generalization” as it treats PR differently than other US Citizens; goes against our core democratic values and principles– enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, and US Constitution that calls for–“Consent of the Governed”; Fairness, Equal Civil Rights, and a Republican form of Government or Representative Democracy– which the Federal Government has denied (since 1898) to loyal and integrated US Citizens/US Veterans in the US Territory of PR who cherish their US Citizenship; have locally VOTED for STATEHOOD 4 times– as the US Congress/US President have not acted to ensure Equal Civil Rights for all “WE THE PEOPLE”!
++Fight for RIGHT! Take Civic action–Petition our Federal Government to ensure Equal Civil Rights/a Democracy for all “WE THE PEOPLE”; END Federal suppression (since 1898) of US Citizens-Veterans in the US Territory of PR; admit PR as a State (majority voted 4 times for STATEHOOD) or do a Plebiscite on defined Non-Territorial Options which only are: “STATEHOOD” vs “INDEPENDENCE” (or “Independence with Free Association Pact”).
NOTE: Besides, some Politicians (includes Trump) inaccurately compare Puerto Rico with Washington DC voting Democrat. But, PR is a “US Territory” (under the unfair Territorial Clause as the US Congress can admit PR as a State or give it Independence); while Washington DC is a “Federal District” that doesn’t fall under the Territorial Clause; can Vote for US President; has parity in Federal Laws/Funding, etc.; might need a Constitutional Amendment to become a State, etc.