This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
If it does, then such a move would require, as a technicality, the repeal of the 23rd Amendment due to there being no citizens of such a District I'm not sure I understand why a repeal would be necessary. Wouldn't it merely be a moot point, like the 3/5 compromise? Nik42 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I just changed this in the article and I went through the history and noticed that, recently, it had gone back and forth several times. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the national district should be "not more than 10 miles square". The site chosen by Washington was 10 times larger than that, or 100 sq miles. I'm not sure how something so blatantly unconstitutional has survived for so long, and, indeed, I would see this as an argument for Maryland retrocession, keeping just the 10 miles around the Capitol as the District. Anyway, could this please not be changed any more? 69.253.193.234 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states "Currently, there is little support for retrocession..." This may be true but I think it should be backed up by a citation, perhaps to an opinion poll. 141.166.226.105 ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'd be curious to know how many Washingtonians are actually aware of the possibility of retrocession since the debate on DC's status tends to focus on status quo v. statehood. Does anyone have any data on how familiar Washingtonians actually are about this possibility? 141.166.226.105 ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
They are aware that it is a possibility but they dismiss it. They want to have two Senators, which is ironic when they talk about how they should have a "fair" amount of representation in Congress. DC has about 600,000 people. An average state like Ohio has 12,000,000. If DC were granted two senators, then the average state would need to have twenty senators to have equal representation. They don't want you to know this. If DC wanted equal representation, they would be returned to Maryland, they would have their own congressional district and would have the opportunity to vote for the Maryland senators, who also represent fewer people than the average state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.98.109 ( talk) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It was much more talked about in the 1990s when DC was in receivership. Now that the District is prospering, DC seems less interested. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ricardianman (
talk •
contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In what year did the retrocession happen???? That information should be in the first or second sentence of the article. Instead, it's not in the article at all. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
With the conflict between Arlington County and the Va govt heightening, there has been talk in some blogs of Arlington returning to DC. Is this the place to discuss that, if and when I find a reliable source?
Ricardianman ( talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
User "Postdif" has drawn DC boundaries on this image, but neglected to note the sentence later on in the article: "...the 29th Congress passed legislation on July 9, 1846, to return all the District's territory south of the Potomac River back to the Commonwealth of Virginia...." In other words, the boundaries of the District on the Potomac are coterminous with the 1846 shore of the Potomac. This is significant because a considerable amount of the Potomac has been filled since then on the "Virginia" side. For example, Boundary Channel, inland of the George Washington National Parkway, is the boundary between DC and Virginia. And part of the National Airport runways were built on landfill, so that some of the Airport lies in DC. Most would term this a distinction without a difference, because neither DC nor Virginia has any jurisdiction over these lands, which are all Federal. But accuracy of the diagram would be of some historical interest. C. Cerf ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Some recent edits to both this page and the main Washington, D.C. page seemed to purport the idea that the cities of Alexandria and Washington were situated within their neighboring counties. That is not the case as the Organic Act of 1801 makes it very clear that the territory of each county was outside the then-independent cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Therefore when discussing the retrocession, it is important to note that all of Alexandria (not just the county) was returned to Virginia. This point is especially important because the citizens in Alexandria County actually voted against retrocession (while the citizens in Alexandria City voted overwhelmingly in favor) and there was a great deal of debate as to whether Virginia could legally accept the return of the county without the landowners' consent (which the General Assembly ultimately did). I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page in case there was a question about those edits. Thanks! - epicAdam( talk) 13:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The section currently begins by saying "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession". I find this way too simplifying. I am aware that this article is about retrocession only, but it does the reader a disservice by not even mentioning the broader issue; that of the lack of representation/control in DC. We must be able to give a much less uncontroversial view of popular opinion than "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" as if that was the only issue at the table or the only solution to the problems that led to discussing retrocession in the first place. Other parts of the article does mention alternative ways to gain voting representation and/or local control, so why not the crucial section on political support? CapnZapp ( talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As you note, the article is about DC Retrocession. It's right there in the title. There is a separate wikipedia article on District of Columbia voting rights. Perhaps that's a better place for the broader issues you want discussed. I don't see what could be controversial about saying that "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" when it is a factual statement based on the polling data cited. Volcycle ( talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on District of Columbia retrocession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There appears to have been a change in attitude about when Alexandria was formally retroceeded. In 1846, after the President certified the vote on September 7th, people and newspapers began to use language indicative that Alexandria had already been retroceeded, which would be in keeping with the law passed by Congress which set the certification as the end of the process. In fact in early March, Congress members were arguing that Virginia should have to pay for part of the Potomac Bridge because it ended on their territory. It would seem that legally, the land was a part of Virginia at that time and the people were citizens of Virginia, but that Virginia had not taken jurisdictional control until March 13, 1847. This is similar, but opposite, to the Alexandria waterfront out to the pier line, where the District retains ownership of the land (actually it's water), but Virginia has jurisdictional control of it. One could reasonably argue that retrocession happened on September 7, 1846 or on March 13, 1847. However in Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court uses 1847 as the date when Virginia "resumed possession" and that has become the more accepted and used date since. For that reason I've used 1847 as the date of retrocession. Volcycle ( talk) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
If it does, then such a move would require, as a technicality, the repeal of the 23rd Amendment due to there being no citizens of such a District I'm not sure I understand why a repeal would be necessary. Wouldn't it merely be a moot point, like the 3/5 compromise? Nik42 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I just changed this in the article and I went through the history and noticed that, recently, it had gone back and forth several times. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the national district should be "not more than 10 miles square". The site chosen by Washington was 10 times larger than that, or 100 sq miles. I'm not sure how something so blatantly unconstitutional has survived for so long, and, indeed, I would see this as an argument for Maryland retrocession, keeping just the 10 miles around the Capitol as the District. Anyway, could this please not be changed any more? 69.253.193.234 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states "Currently, there is little support for retrocession..." This may be true but I think it should be backed up by a citation, perhaps to an opinion poll. 141.166.226.105 ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'd be curious to know how many Washingtonians are actually aware of the possibility of retrocession since the debate on DC's status tends to focus on status quo v. statehood. Does anyone have any data on how familiar Washingtonians actually are about this possibility? 141.166.226.105 ( talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
They are aware that it is a possibility but they dismiss it. They want to have two Senators, which is ironic when they talk about how they should have a "fair" amount of representation in Congress. DC has about 600,000 people. An average state like Ohio has 12,000,000. If DC were granted two senators, then the average state would need to have twenty senators to have equal representation. They don't want you to know this. If DC wanted equal representation, they would be returned to Maryland, they would have their own congressional district and would have the opportunity to vote for the Maryland senators, who also represent fewer people than the average state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.98.109 ( talk) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It was much more talked about in the 1990s when DC was in receivership. Now that the District is prospering, DC seems less interested. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ricardianman (
talk •
contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In what year did the retrocession happen???? That information should be in the first or second sentence of the article. Instead, it's not in the article at all. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
With the conflict between Arlington County and the Va govt heightening, there has been talk in some blogs of Arlington returning to DC. Is this the place to discuss that, if and when I find a reliable source?
Ricardianman ( talk) 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
User "Postdif" has drawn DC boundaries on this image, but neglected to note the sentence later on in the article: "...the 29th Congress passed legislation on July 9, 1846, to return all the District's territory south of the Potomac River back to the Commonwealth of Virginia...." In other words, the boundaries of the District on the Potomac are coterminous with the 1846 shore of the Potomac. This is significant because a considerable amount of the Potomac has been filled since then on the "Virginia" side. For example, Boundary Channel, inland of the George Washington National Parkway, is the boundary between DC and Virginia. And part of the National Airport runways were built on landfill, so that some of the Airport lies in DC. Most would term this a distinction without a difference, because neither DC nor Virginia has any jurisdiction over these lands, which are all Federal. But accuracy of the diagram would be of some historical interest. C. Cerf ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Some recent edits to both this page and the main Washington, D.C. page seemed to purport the idea that the cities of Alexandria and Washington were situated within their neighboring counties. That is not the case as the Organic Act of 1801 makes it very clear that the territory of each county was outside the then-independent cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Therefore when discussing the retrocession, it is important to note that all of Alexandria (not just the county) was returned to Virginia. This point is especially important because the citizens in Alexandria County actually voted against retrocession (while the citizens in Alexandria City voted overwhelmingly in favor) and there was a great deal of debate as to whether Virginia could legally accept the return of the county without the landowners' consent (which the General Assembly ultimately did). I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page in case there was a question about those edits. Thanks! - epicAdam( talk) 13:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The section currently begins by saying "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession". I find this way too simplifying. I am aware that this article is about retrocession only, but it does the reader a disservice by not even mentioning the broader issue; that of the lack of representation/control in DC. We must be able to give a much less uncontroversial view of popular opinion than "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" as if that was the only issue at the table or the only solution to the problems that led to discussing retrocession in the first place. Other parts of the article does mention alternative ways to gain voting representation and/or local control, so why not the crucial section on political support? CapnZapp ( talk) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As you note, the article is about DC Retrocession. It's right there in the title. There is a separate wikipedia article on District of Columbia voting rights. Perhaps that's a better place for the broader issues you want discussed. I don't see what could be controversial about saying that "Neither residents of Maryland nor of DC support retrocession" when it is a factual statement based on the polling data cited. Volcycle ( talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on District of Columbia retrocession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There appears to have been a change in attitude about when Alexandria was formally retroceeded. In 1846, after the President certified the vote on September 7th, people and newspapers began to use language indicative that Alexandria had already been retroceeded, which would be in keeping with the law passed by Congress which set the certification as the end of the process. In fact in early March, Congress members were arguing that Virginia should have to pay for part of the Potomac Bridge because it ended on their territory. It would seem that legally, the land was a part of Virginia at that time and the people were citizens of Virginia, but that Virginia had not taken jurisdictional control until March 13, 1847. This is similar, but opposite, to the Alexandria waterfront out to the pier line, where the District retains ownership of the land (actually it's water), but Virginia has jurisdictional control of it. One could reasonably argue that retrocession happened on September 7, 1846 or on March 13, 1847. However in Phillips v. Payne the Supreme Court uses 1847 as the date when Virginia "resumed possession" and that has become the more accepted and used date since. For that reason I've used 1847 as the date of retrocession. Volcycle ( talk) 18:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)