PDA

View Full Version : The State of Alaska



Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 06:22 PM
Why is Alaska a U.S. State? It makes no sense to me. It is the largest state in land area with the fourth smallest population (710,231 people as of the 2010 census).

The three least populous U.S. States are Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota in that order. I can understand why these three, being contiguous to other U.S. States, were granted statehood. But why Alaska?

Jefferson COUNTY, Kentucky, has a larger population of 740,096 people. The tiny islands of Hawaii have nearly twice the population of Alaska. The tiny U.S. territory of Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789 people.

Why does Alaska deserve to be represented by two U.S. senators? I don't get it. Can anyone explain?

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 06:35 PM
Basic justice - big area we own so why should US citizens there not have representation in Congress? Same with Hawaii. Leaves Puerto Rico as a place where the lack of statehood remains an unjust issue. That or independence. Our Pacific territories are not, so far as I am aware, pushing for statehood. DC sometimes wants a bit more ability to control itself rather than just be the Federal government's company town with all the bad that implies.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 06:45 PM
No doubt you are correct, Ian

But I think it is fair to question just how in touch Alaskan representatives to congress (and Alaskan politicians seeking national elective office) are to the concerns of the VAST MAJORITY of Americans.

At the time she was running as a candidate for vice-POTUS, I compared Sarah Palin's job experience, negatively, to that of the mayor of Metro Louisville (now the lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky). That remark generated considerable criticism. But I stand by it.

Milo Christensen
04-30-2012, 06:50 PM
Typical - liberal angst about the Senators from someplace he's probably never been while living in a state with two truly extraordinary Senators.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 06:53 PM
Tom, you sound like sosmeone who would never share power if he could help it. One of my shipmates from 40 odd years ago used to get angry if he saw a city limit sign with less than 100K... "They shouldn't even be allowed to have a sign if they're no bigger than that!" was something he said regularly. (He was from New York City... a real 'my way or the hiway' kind of guy)

and as such, are the very reason for equal representation in trhe form of the Senate. I think it possible you would be a tyrant based on what you have said here.

tigerregis
04-30-2012, 06:54 PM
It applied, was debated and admitted. If you think it should be different, get an am[m]endment. Sorry, I couldn't resist. It appears you don't like "bridges to nowhere".

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 06:59 PM
"Angst?" Nope. Just an honest question.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:03 PM
maybe we should talk about Road Island... do they deserve to be a state or just someone's garden plot… thus two more senators gone and the population claimed by a more deserving state

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:03 PM
Tom, you sound like sosmeone [sic] who would never share power if he could help it.

Not at all!

If you have followed my posts at all over the years you will realize is that my argument is with those who OPPOSE the authoritative power of a representative government.

But full marks for trying, Phillip!

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:04 PM
Not at all!

If you have followed my posts at all over the years you will realize is that my argument is with those who OPPOSE the power of a representative union

fixed that for ya (aren't you the one who said anyone who opposed the union is guilty of treason?)

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:06 PM
A HUGE diversion from the thread topic.

But full marks for trying, Phillip.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:07 PM
Absurd and silly.

absurd and silly ... yep, we've seen that one before

stevebaby
04-30-2012, 07:08 PM
maybe we should talk about Road Island... do they deserve to be a state or just someone's garden plot… thus two more senators gone and the population claimed by a more deserving stateIs that anywhere near Rhode Island?

ChrisBen
04-30-2012, 07:10 PM
But full marks for trying, Phillip!Better deduct a few points for this. :D

maybe we should talk about Road Island...

Beat me to it Steve.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:10 PM
FWIW, Phillip, I agree with your correction! The key word is "representative."

But it remains a HUGE diversion from the topic of the thread. Extremely trollish behavior....

bamamick
04-30-2012, 07:12 PM
Sure. Why not? Kick 'em out. Kick out all of the small population states. The US should be made up of California, Ohio, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Does Connecticut make the cut? Michigan? Illinois, I guess? Yep, the rest of us should either take less representation in Congress or should get out altogether, right?

If I remember correctly from school a bunch of states tried to leave voluntarily at one point and were not allowed to go. I wonder why that was?

It's a crazy world, sometimes.

Mickey Lake

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:15 PM
I am not advocating "kicking out" any state, Mickey. I merely asked why Alaska was accepted as a state rather than remaining a territory.

I was five years old at the time and do not remember.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:19 PM
sorry about the spelling... (another bit of argumentative armor)
I was more interested in the content of the post than the bunting... and spell check let me down

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:20 PM
I am not advocating "kicking out" any state, Mickey. I merely asked why Alaska was accepted as a state rather than remaining a territory.

I was five years old at the time and do not remember.

I wasn't even born when we let Rhode Island in

and let us not forget that we gave Virginia FOUR senators!

ChrisBen
04-30-2012, 07:21 PM
sorry about the spelling... (another bit of argumentative armor)
I was more interested in the content of the post than the bunting... and spell check let me down
That's okay, someone spelled it the same way a couple weeks ago and was roundly abused for it. :D

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:22 PM
Here is what I am wondering: Did cold war politics have anything to do with it?

This is an honest question. I do not know. But I note the era when Alaska was accepted as a U.S. State. Coincidence? Can anyone here speak to this?

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 07:24 PM
Here is what I am wondering: Did cold war politics have anything to do with it?

This is an honest question. I do not know. But I note the era when Alaska was accepted as a U.S. State. Coincidence?

you might want to include Hawail in this discussion... and Guam and Wake and Purto Rico and American Samoa and The US Virgin Islands and...

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:27 PM
Why? Please explain, Phillip.

Have you looked at a globe lately?

No? I figgered.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 07:32 PM
Phillip: I'll give you a clue.

The Soviet missiles don't fly over Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands.

BrianW
04-30-2012, 07:54 PM
Why does Alaska deserve to be represented by two U.S. senators? I don't get it. Can anyone explain?

Yes.

Because the number of Senators is fixed at two. The number of Representatives is determined by population.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:05 PM
Touché, Brian!

I meant, of course, does Alaska deserve to have all the perogatives of a U.S State? My guess is 90% understood my meaning. But full marks for your "gotcha."


So... you are an Alaskan citizen. Educate us to the politics behind the acquisition of Alaskan statehood.

Glen Longino
04-30-2012, 08:09 PM
Typical - liberal angst about the Senators from someplace he's probably never been while living in a state with two truly extraordinary Senators.

..."two truly extraordinary Senators"...

Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell are two truly extraordinary Troglodytes, Milo!
They will do anything they can to disrupt the country they are sworn to serve.
How can you be so naive?

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 08:13 PM
But the Alaska senators are no worse than what's coming out of Oklahoma and some other places these days.

brad9798
04-30-2012, 08:13 PM
I hear you, Tom ... but I can guarantee your KY sens don't care a lick about issues affecting the SW or the NW ... nor do my MO sens ...

It is part of what makes the US unique ... we are 'fight' for our regions/areas ... and for what will help OUR regions/areas ... often at the cost of other regions/areas.

AK has just as much right to fight for the DEADLIEST CATCH series as KY does for basketball!!! :D

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:14 PM
..."two truly extraordinary Senators"...

Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell are two truly extraordinary Troglodytes, Milo!
They will do anything they can to disrupt the country they are sworn to serve.
How can you be so naive?

My impression is that such an outrageous remark can only be an attempt to troll.

So I ignore it. ;)

BrianW
04-30-2012, 08:19 PM
Here's a link...

http://www.history.com/topics/states

It will help you in your quest for knowledge.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:21 PM
Ian and Brad: No doubt.

But I am curious about the circumstances behind the declaration of Alaska as a U.S. State.

I am asking an honest question. I do not know.

BrianW? Anyone?

Nicholas Scheuer
04-30-2012, 08:21 PM
Senators aside, Alaska has elected one of the dumbest Governors in history.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:22 PM
In your own words please, BrianW.

BrianW
04-30-2012, 08:23 PM
But the Alaska senators are no worse than what's coming out of Oklahoma and some other places these days.

Ones a Democrat, and the other votes like one. I should think they'd be popular here.

BrianW
04-30-2012, 08:25 PM
In your own words please, BrianW.

It's 0554 local, and I'm off to work.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:28 PM
Senators aside, Alaska has elected one of the dumbest Governors in history.

Keep in mind that the governor of Alaska equates to the mayor of Metro Louisville.

Do municipalities occasionally elect incompetents? You bet. But who does more harm? An incompetent mayor or an incompetent governor? I guess it depends upon whether you live in Alaska or Portland.

Glen Longino
04-30-2012, 08:28 PM
But the Alaska senators are no worse than what's coming out of Oklahoma and some other places these days.

And Texas!
I nominate John Cornyn to serve as temporary Satan until the Real Satan gets here!;)

LeeG
04-30-2012, 08:32 PM
I wasn't even born when we let Rhode Island in

and let us not forget that we gave Virginia FOUR senators!

exactly, why couldn't they have come up with a unique name, and what about North and South Dakota, North and South Carolina, North and South California!

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 08:34 PM
"Ones a Democrat, and the other votes like one. I should think they'd be popular here." [#35]

Took me a bit to realize you were referring to Alaska's two. So I looked them up as I'd not paid any attention and compared to Inhofe and Coburn they are steller. Both "moderates" of their parties, both honorable and able to legislate for the common weal. I'd rather liberals, of course, but in the US pragmatic centerists can be good so long as they are not in thrall to any vested interests. Good for Alaska.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:40 PM
Two hours and no one has yet to give us any facts regarding the politics behind Alaskan statehood.

I made a rather provocative speculation about Alaskan statehood and cold war politics.

Yet no one, not even our Alaskan Forumite, has touched the topic.

purri
04-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Anyone mentioned oil and minerals yet?

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Two hours and no one has yet to give us any facts regarding the politics behind Alaskan statehood.

I made a rather provocative speculation about Alaskan statehood and cold war politics.

Yet no one, not even our Alaskan Forumite, has touched the topic.

you have made the suggestion that Alaska would not be a state but for the politics of the cold war... fine but it beggs the question of Hawaii which came in at the same time (more or less). the 'politics' must have been the same

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 08:50 PM
you have made the suggestion that Alaska would not be a state but for the politics of the cold war... fine but it begs the question of Hawaii which came in at the same time (more or less). the 'politics' must have been the same

Phillip: Obviously you have not been paying attention. See posts #23 & #24.

As for Hawaii: over 3,000,000 people wishing to be a U.S. state makes sense.

Puerto Rico would be immediately accepted as the 51st U.S. state if that was their desire. Hell., Cuba would be accepted as the 51st state once Castro dies and the survivors ask.

But what is with Alaska? Seriously.

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Ah Tom, I did not see your question that way but the answer is simple - more people moving in in the post-war period. Wikipedia has a good overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Statehood_Act) except to my memory all the trading back and forth about R's and D's, Alaska and Hawaii, that are discussed there are a bit of a distraction. As I recall, both areas had many US citizens who wanted the full rights of citizenship - people in Congress. That was certainly the driving argument in my politically contentious family.

Puerto Rico is a bit different because we took it from another nation by conquest and both Puerto Ricans and mainland white US folk have been confused about independence v. statehood.

ccmanuals
04-30-2012, 08:58 PM
And Texas!
I nominate John Cornyn to serve as temporary Satan until the Real Satan gets here!;)

I'll second that.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Is that anywhere near Rhode Island?The state, as written, was on Joe Biden's itinerary created by the White House for when he went there for a fundraiser.The itinerary called the state Road Island.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:07 PM
47 posts and no one has answered my question.

Why does Alaska deserve to be a U.S. state rather than a U.S. territory?

What were the politics behind Alaska acquiring statehood?

Alaska was accepted as a U.S. state in 1959.

I think it had to do with how the missiles would fly.

jsjpd1
04-30-2012, 09:15 PM
Alaska became a state mostly due to the fact the people of Alaska really wanted statehood. There was a group of very dedicated and energetic and active people including our non-voting senator, who spent a lot of time lobbying for statehood in Washington. When it looked like statehood might be possible a Constitutional Convention was formed and a constitution written, which help to force the issue in our favor. It didn't hurt that Hawaii also wanted statehood and we could bring the states in basically as a pair to keep things politically balanced.

Jim

ETA- I don't think the cold war had much to due with it. The federal government had a much freer hand prior to statehood.

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2012, 09:22 PM
Let's switch the question around. Why wouldn't they deserve to be part of the US Tom?.As to obtain more gov assistance perhaps, maybe infrastructure such as roads. As far as politics is concerned, maybe the people wanted to be US citizens because many may have come from the lower 48 states. Maybe they wanted Representation, oil reserves, gold, you name it. The number of residents in Alaska should not be the reason for keeping Alaska a territory.

Steve McMahon
04-30-2012, 09:22 PM
It's a good question Tom. In my opinion it should really have been a Province not a State. :eek:

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:23 PM
I hear you, Tom ... but I can guarantee your KY sens don't care a lick about issues affecting the SW or the NW ... nor do my MO sens ...

Unfortunately, I can guarantee my KY senators don't care about anything beyond acquiring enough power to strip the Federal Government of all power beyond that concerning the military.

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 09:25 PM
Tom, you can think what you want or you can read not just the posts here but also a little history and then think what you want with a little more information.

It is true that part of Alaska's post-war population growth was Cold War related, but both Hawaii and Alaska - remember the two states came in with the same general ferment - were growing in economic importance and population and both had populations of US citizens tired of not having their own representation in Congress. The push came from the people there. It was not something inflicted on them.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:28 PM
Thanks, Ian. The first post directly addressing my question.

jsjpd1
04-30-2012, 09:28 PM
Tom, you can think what you want or you can read not just the posts here but also a little history and then think what you want with a little more information.

It is true that part of Alaska's post-war population growth was Cold War related, but both Hawaii and Alaska - remember the two states came in with the same general ferment - were growing in economic importance and population and both had populations of US citizens tired of not having their own representation in Congress. The push came from the people there. It was not something inflicted on them.

That's exactly right Ian. Without the citizens of Alaska and Hawaii pushing for statehood they'd still be territories.

jsjpd1
04-30-2012, 09:30 PM
Thanks, Ian. The first post directly addressing my question.

Really? Post 49 didn't address your question?


Alaska became a state mostly due to the fact the people of Alaska really wanted statehood. There was a group of very dedicated and energetic and active people including our non-voting senator, who spent a lot of time lobbying for statehood in Washington. When it looked like statehood might be possible a Constitutional Convention was formed and a constitution written, which help to force the issue in our favor. It didn't hurt that Hawaii also wanted statehood and we could bring the states in basically as a pair to keep things politically balanced.

Jim

ETA- I don't think the cold war had much to due with it. The federal government had a much freer hand prior to statehood.

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:33 PM
I understand that all the white immigrants to the Alaskan territory desired statehood.

But who made the final decision? And why?

brad9798
04-30-2012, 09:34 PM
Missiles in AK and HI would have been much closer in the day ... to USSR. N.Korea ...

AK had/has a TON of GOLD and a TON of OIL ...

S.V. Airlie
04-30-2012, 09:42 PM
I understand that all the white immigrants to the Alaskan territory desired statehood.

But who made the final decision? And why?The residents more than likely petitioned the president or congress after voting for statehood..

jsjpd1
04-30-2012, 09:42 PM
I understand that all the white immigrants to the Alaskan territory desired statehood.

But who made the final decision? And why?


By the turn of the 20th century, a movement pushing for Alaska statehood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) began, but in the contiguous 48 states, legislators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislator) were worried that Alaska's population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population) was too sparse, distant, and isolated, and its economy was too unstable for it to be a worthwhile addition to the United States.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska#cite_note-13) World War II and the Japanese invasion highlighted Alaska's strategic importance, and the issue of statehood was taken more seriously, but it was the discovery of oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil) at Swanson River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson_River) on the Kenai Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenai_Peninsula) that dispelled the image of Alaska as a weak, dependent region. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower) signed the Alaska Statehood Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Statehood_Act) into United States law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_law) on July 7, 1958, which paved the way for Alaska's admission into the Union on January 3, 1959. Juneau, the territorial capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(political)), continued as state capital, and William A. Egan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Egan)was sworn in as the first governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor).

Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska

Jim

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:44 PM
Missiles in AK and HI would have been much closer in the day ... to USSR. N.Korea ...

Well sure... But at the time (1959) we had no missiles in those locations . The missiles were located in the continental U.S. and in the Soviet Union. I'll say it again: take a look at a globe.


AK had/has a TON of GOLD and a TON of OIL ...

So? Why does this matter regarding territorial status or statehood?

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 09:44 PM
As I recall both grade school civics and hearing family history in the process of Oklahoma statehood as retold during the Hawaii and Alaska time, Congress has the sole power to admit a territory as a state. Congress has consistently looked at the territory's ability to govern itself in a manner consistent with US practice - a republican form - and to accept the US Constitution and all that. A territory cannot become a state on its own sole initiative, as Texas found out. Nor will a territory be made a state against its will. There must be considerable citizen commitment to statehood to make the institutions that satisfy Congress that the territory is ready to be a state. Our earlier, just post-Revolutionary history has a number of interesting examples of little entities that wanted to be admitted as states but were not, for one reason or another.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 09:45 PM
Phillip: Obviously you have not been paying attention. See posts #23 & #24.

As for Hawaii: over 3,000,000 people wishing to be a U.S. state makes sense.

Puerto Rico would be immediately accepted as the 51st U.S. state if that was their desire. Hell., Cuba would be accepted as the 51st state once Castro dies and the survivors ask.

But what is with Alaska? Seriously.

Okay, I re read 23 and 24... 23 is just condesention and 24 is a conclusion asking for proof... you write like you resent Alaska and that's the message I got...as you are not prepared to defend that, but repeat the same question after answers have been given which do not support your conclusion... my conclusion is that you are a conclusion looking for back-up... good luck... no doubt wardd will help or glen

brad9798
04-30-2012, 09:47 PM
Not at the time, Tom! But we were trying to be proactive with regard to missiles ... :)

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:52 PM
jsjpd1: I am suggesting that more important national security considerations were involved.

Wikipedia is either an excellent or poor source depending upon the topic. I'd suggest it is a poor source regarding this topic.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 09:54 PM
jsjpd1: I am suggesting that more important national security considerations were involved.

Wikipedia is either an excellent or poor source depending upon the topic. I'd suggest it is a poor source regarding this topic.

still don't want the answers you have gotten?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-30-2012, 09:56 PM
Why is Alaska a U.S. State? It makes no sense to me. It is the largest state in land area with the fourth smallest population (710,231 people as of the 2010 census).

The three least populous U.S. States are Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota in that order. I can understand why these three, being contiguous to other U.S. States, were granted statehood. But why Alaska?

Jefferson COUNTY, Kentucky, has a larger population of 740,096 people. The tiny islands of Hawaii have nearly twice the population of Alaska. The tiny U.S. territory of Puerto Rico has a population of 3,725,789 people.

Why does Alaska deserve to be represented by two U.S. senators? I don't get it. Can anyone explain?

I know you know the answer but I'm going to give it anyway.
It in the US Constitution. It was a COMPROMISE ( nasty word word "COMPROMISE" if you are Teapartier) to guarantee the small states retained some legislative leverage in the US congress.
The Founding Fathers knew how to get things done, didn't they?

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 09:59 PM
okay, i re read 23 and 24... 23 is just condesention [sic] and 24 is a conclusion asking for proof... You write like you resent alaska and that's the message i got...as you are not prepared to defend that, but repeat the same question after answers have been given which do not support your conclusion... My conclusion is that you are a conclusion looking for back-up... Good luck... No doubt wardd will help or glen

sheesh....

Tom Montgomery
04-30-2012, 10:03 PM
Quite a thread! I've managed to stir up both Reps and Libs!

I guess that means I have generated thought.

Ian McColgin
04-30-2012, 10:07 PM
It only counts if you generated some thought on your own part. Only you will know . . .


. . .

. . . but you don't need to tell us, in case we might take issue.

HehHehHeh

jsjpd1
04-30-2012, 10:31 PM
jsjpd1: I am suggesting that more important national security considerations were involved.

Wikipedia is either an excellent or poor source depending upon the topic. I'd suggest it is a poor source regarding this topic.

It's a free country, you can suggest whatever you like. There is an interesting video that's aired on our public station from time to time, The Forty-Nineth Star, all about statehood and the constitutional convention, where they interviewed many of the people responsible for statehood, if it every airs on your local station you should check it out.

The United States already had control of the territory of Alaska, how exactly do you think making Alaska a state improved the national security situation?

Jim

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 11:05 PM
It's a free country, you can suggest whatever you like. There is an interesting video that's aired on our public station from time to time, The Forty-Nineth Star, all about statehood and the constitutional convention, where they interviewed many of the people responsible for statehood, if it every airs on your local station you should check it out.

The United States already had control of the territory of Alaska, how exactly do you think making Alaska a state improved the national security situation?

Jim

I don't know it for a fact and I"m sure he would deny it but THERE ARE PEOPLE who think in terms of absolute control by a centralized government and cannot think effectively outside those parameters

purri
04-30-2012, 11:10 PM
Well sure... But at the time (1959) we had no missiles in those locations . The missiles were located in the continental U.S. and in the Soviet Union. I'll say it again: take a look at a globe.



So? Why does this matter regarding territorial status or statehood?

I posit that it is much harder politically and diplomatically to cede a State than a territory. Res republicae and all that.

Now what about Guam and your other Pacific "possessions" while we're on the subject...

bobbys
04-30-2012, 11:17 PM
Quite a thread! I've managed to stir up both Reps and Libs!

I guess that means I have generated thought..

The only thought i had was , Was there a Question about the Validity of any States, in Particular Alaska ?.

Phillip Allen
04-30-2012, 11:21 PM
.

The only thought i had was , Was there a Question about the Validity of any States, in Particular Alaska ?.

I think he wants them to have less representation than his state... it looks like that to me... but he's not speaking of congressmen but senators

Waddie
04-30-2012, 11:36 PM
I understand that all the white immigrants to the Alaskan territory desired statehood.
But who made the final decision? And why?

I understand that all the white immigrants to the Alaskan territory desired statehood;
Isn't that how all the states became states........ :)

But who made the final decision? Other white people..... And why? To help other white people take land from non white people.... See, history is basically pretty simple..... :)

regards,
Waddie

purri
04-30-2012, 11:56 PM
^There's a certain brutal truth to that...

tigerregis
05-01-2012, 12:34 AM
Seward's folly, you bought it, you own it, husbanded it, and cleaned up the oil spill. Don't you just wish the Czar still owned it?

BrianW
05-01-2012, 02:59 AM
It's a good question Tom. In my opinion it should really have been a Province not a State. :eek:

I've always thought that Alaska, British Columbia, and the Yukon would make a nice little country together.

BrianW
05-01-2012, 03:15 AM
Could be that the people of Alaska are a bit more worldly than those from the mid-west, despite some claims above to the contrary...


But I think it is fair to question just how in touch Alaskan representatives to congress (and Alaskan politicians seeking national elective office) are to the concerns of the VAST MAJORITY of Americans.

By comparison, more Alaskans have passports than some other States...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/255764/US-PASSPORT-MAP.jpg


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/post_662_n_833399.html

They probably travel more, and see a lot more of the country than say... someone from Kentucky.

Take me for example, and my family. How many travel threads have I contributed to the Bilge? I can think of a road trip a couple years ago, across the northern States, where we ended up at the WBS. One last June where we traveled I-40 and then into Florida. Couple years ago it was Costa Rica. Several years ago it was England, Scotland, and France. In between, a couple trips to Hawaii.

We've even lived in Kentucky for several years.

I'd say Alaskans do a pretty good job of getting around American and beyond.

Where have you been lately Tom? You know, in your own words?

Tom Montgomery
05-01-2012, 04:22 AM
I don't know it for a fact and I"m sure he would deny it but THERE ARE PEOPLE who think in terms of absolute control by a centralized government and cannot think effectively outside those parameters

Oh my! I have been outed!


I think he wants them to have less representation than his state...

Yep. Once we have disposed of Alaska the next target will be Vermont.

Can Arkansas be far behind? I think not. Be afraid... be very afraid.

Tom Montgomery
05-01-2012, 04:59 AM
I don't know it for a fact and I"m sure he would deny it....

HA!

We disdain to conceal our views and our aims.

Nicholas Carey
05-01-2012, 10:25 AM
Typical - liberal angst about the Senators from someplace he's probably never been while living in a state with two truly extraordinary Senators.

the problem is that (for instance) Alaska's 2 senators comprise 2% of the Senate, whilst Alaska's population (710,000) comprises less than 1/4 of 1 percent (0.23666% to be precise) of the United States Population (300,000,000).

Ian McColgin
05-01-2012, 10:34 AM
Our system is built on compromises, checks and balances. Legislative power checks and balances executive power and both are checked by judicial power which derives from laws and can't make laws and so on. In that line, the power of large populations in some states in the House is checked by the equalization of all states in the Senate, just as within the states the power of urban areas in one house is checked by some equalization in the other house.

A republic or representative democracy really cannot be just one form of apportionment, whether that be apportioned by population, or by land owned, or by wealth. All factors interplay and hopefully (regrettably wealth is ascendent just now) check each other.

BrianW
05-01-2012, 11:02 AM
the problem is that (for instance) Alaska's 2 senators comprise 2% of the Senate, whilst Alaska's population (710,000) comprises less than 1/4 of 1 percent (0.23666% to be precise) of the United States Population (300,000,000).

So the way the US Senate and the House are set up is a problem?

David W Pratt
05-01-2012, 11:18 AM
Here at the other end of the area spectrum, we, too, hav 2 senators.

S.V. Airlie
05-01-2012, 11:36 AM
I've always thought that Alaska, British Columbia, and the Yukon would make a nice little country together.Canada could probably have bought it. I wonder why they didn't?

Waddie
05-01-2012, 11:59 AM
the problem is that (for instance) Alaska's 2 senators comprise 2% of the Senate, whilst Alaska's population (710,000) comprises less than 1/4 of 1 percent (0.23666% to be precise) of the United States Population (300,000,000).

That problem was addressed by the Founders by making representation in the House of Representatives based on population. Fearing that because the House is elected by the great unwashed masses, they created a more deliberate body called the Senate to slow things down a bit, and protect the government from extremism. Originally the senators were not elected by state popular vote. In essence, they were sort of appointed. The president is still elected by the electoral college and not by popular vote.

regards,
Waddie

Concordia 33
05-01-2012, 12:56 PM
maybe we should talk about Road Island... do they deserve to be a state or just someone's garden plot… thus two more senators gone and the population claimed by a more deserving state

Why pick on Rhode Island. There are 7 less populace states. And based on density, Rhode Island is the 2nd most densly populated state. If that is not enough for you, we may be the smallest state but we have the longest name "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations"

I don't want to be a part of Massachusetts or Connecticut. Maybe we could team up with Vermont (another low population state). Then we could become "The State of Vermont, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" that would give us some cachet. :)

Sadly our economy is in the dumps (unemployment 2nd only to Nevada) and shrinking population - we will likely lose one of our two congressional seats in the next census.

S.V. Airlie
05-01-2012, 01:30 PM
Concordia I don't think he was really talking about Rhode Island perse, I think it was a jab at the white house who developed Biden's itinerary for a fund raiser there. Remember Rhode Island was referred to as Road Island by the white house.Of course the designers of the itinerary weren't out of touch at all.

Concordia 33
05-01-2012, 01:34 PM
Concordia I don't think he was really talking about Rhode Island perse, I think it was a jab at the white house who developed Biden's itinerary for a fund raiser there. Remember Rhode Island was referred to as Road Island by the white house.Of course the designers of the itinerary weren't out of touch at all.

I was kidding too :)

I don't care if he picks on Little Rhody.

Just having a little fun

Ian McColgin
05-01-2012, 01:36 PM
Oh, stop picking on Rhode Island. Just because it declined to send any delegate at all to the constitutional convention and just because it was the last of the original thirteen states to ratify is no reason . . .

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
05-01-2012, 01:48 PM
...

But what is with Alaska? Seriously.

Russians got loadsa money - sell it back.

ccmanuals
05-01-2012, 02:54 PM
I really had no appreciation for Rhode Island, never having been there, till I saw "Me, Myself and Irene." Based upon this movie I'm thinking it's really a beautiful place.