Posted on 05/26/2026 8:01:18 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
In 1847, D.C. pressed for the abolition of slavery, Alexandria, was officially separated after President James K. Polk issued a PROCLAMATION and the Virginia LEGISLATURE accepted.
Virginians were afraid that "slaves" would walk across the boundary into the District and become free.
With the Potomac River parting Virginia from the District, slaves would be unable to gain their freedom. As a result slavery EXPANDED in Virginia even after DC abolished it.
President Trump should consider issuing an executive order directing the DOJ to EXPLORE the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the 1847 retrocession.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The smaller DC becomes, the less sense it makes to grant it statehood.
The pendulum swings. Someday the Democrats will once again control Congress and the Presidency. The bigger DC gets, the more likely it becomes a state.
No, eliminate the District and neuter the Democrat push for 2 DC senators.
Great idea. The district was created by states ceding territory. Nothing authorizes giving land back to the state. However, the whole issue is only addressed briefly, in relation to congressional jurisdiction.
Or we could give back to Maryland the part it gave up to form DC, leaving only the core Federal properties to the District. This would have the advantage of allowing present-day DC residents to vote (as Maryland residents), thus avoiding much of the clamor for statehood.
This is the approach that Great Britain took.
As it turned out it may well have been cheaper than the Civil War.
Yes. Get the Blues (all those fed bureaucrats) out of Virginia .
Freeing the slaves and compensating their owners would have been cheaper than fighting the Civil War—but the owners did not want to sell (and a lot of non-slaveowners probably would have opposed spending so much tax money for that purpose). I don’t think anyone at the time thought that the federal government could compel someone to sell something if he didn’t want to. Until Barack Obama nobody thought that the federal government could compel someone to buy something he didn’t want.
Wouldn’t the constitution need to be amended in order to make DC a state? IIRC, the founders wisely and clearly said the seat of federal government shouldn’t be. IIRC.
**DC should be smaller, not bigger. The smaller DC becomes, the less sense it makes to grant it statehood.**
**No, eliminate the District and neuter the Democrat push for 2 DC senators.**
I think we’re safe per the constitution unless there are 5 Kentanji Browns on the court.
Better brush up on your geography.
Loudoun county is not contiguous to DC.
Don’t make DC bigger, or make it a state! And honor James K Polk!
Its right next to Arlington and Fairfax. Pack all 3 off to DC.
I’m much more in favor of making DC smaller giving back most of the square to Maryland. only keep the spots downtown and military areas.
Not even close to Arlington.
I meant Fairfax county.
Slavery was abolished in DC in 1862, with partial compensation, $300 per slave. It was abolished in Maryland in 1864. What is now the Maryland suburbs of DC had higher slave percentages than what is now Virginia suburbs. Southern Maryland, the first settled and mostly Catholic area, had majority slaves in some counties at the time of the Civil War, with slaves mostly still used for tobacco cultivation. Other parts of Maryland had few slaves.
The Confederates would not have accepted compensated emancipation. The Union was not initially proposing abolishing slavery. The issue officially was mainly over slavery in the territories, but some southerners thought there were long term threats to slavery. Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform, without appearing on the ballot in any southern state but Virginia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.