Outlandish? Hell Yeah

 I saw this and got a bit miffed:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/
A-map-of-the-historical-territorial-expansion-
of-the-United-States-of-America-
Source_fig1_330787808

This economist is a crappy social scientist.  Yes, the US started with 13 states and is now at 50, so it is not outlandish that it could grow further, adding new states.  Indeed, I have been advocating statehood for the District of Columbia and for Puerto Rico (if the folks there want to do so).  But the context here is, of course, Canada.  I have already discussed the Trump 51st state bullshit, but since economists are spouting dumb things,* it is my duty as a political scientist to remind them that politics is a thing.

First, a quick dance through history and how the US got from 13 to 50 states:

• A good many states came from the original territory the US got as a result of the Revolutionary War--the way west to Wisconsin, Illinois, Tennessee and Mississippi.
  
• Jefferson violated his own principles because the amazing opportunity to buy the Louisana Territory appeared, so the US bought that vast tract of land from France.   This would be the best Greenland analog if not for the fact that Denmark ain't selling or ceding.
  
• The US got an even better deal when Spain wanted to get out of Florida (a pretty smart move).
• Texas.... is a complicated story leading to Six Flags parks (ewwww, I just learned what the sixth flag is).  Settled by Americans, first they tried to be independent, seizing land from Mexico, and then the US defended Texas from Mexico and got most of Texas and some chunks of a few other states as well.  
• Shortly there after, the US-Mexican war led to the US getting much of Mexico--the southwest US as we know today (if Utah and Nevada count as southwest).
  
• Another good deal--US bought Alaska from Russia.
• And then the conquest of Hawaii
  

So, much of this was European settlers giving up their claims to the US.  Is the UK going to give up Canada to the US?  Nope, it can't thanks to the UK giving up its claim to Canada (a Canadian historian can tell you better when this happened, but I believe it happened several times).

Of the cases above, the closest that comes to a pre-existing independent country was Texas.  They sought/agreed to annexation because of fear of Mexico if I remember correctly.  Is Canada so scared of Russia that it would rather give up independence?  Um, no.

So, the other model is conquest a la the southwest or Hawaii.  Yes, the US military would defeat the Canadian military in days .... if the US military followed orders to attack Canada. But controlling Canada would be hard--while much of the huge country could be ignored, controlling the cities along the border and, yes, the pipelines, would be tricky.

One of the things that is widely ignored is that most states became states only after having referenda or ratification of the state constitution (Check out this handy guide).  How would such a ratification vote go these days in Canada?  It would fail miserably as most Canadians reject the idea.

What Trump and the economist get wrong is that countries have their own domestic politics.  Being annexed by Trump's US is wildly unpopular in Canada and in Greenland.  Politicians contemplating such a merger would be risking their own careers in a big, big way.  No Canadian politician is going to advocate for merger--not if they want to have a political career in Canada.  Plus it would involve federal-provincial politics and Canada-Indigenous People politics.  Good luck sorting that out.

Oh, and the only way to make it at all imaginable is to turn Canada not into the 51st state but into states 51st-60th (or more).  No way Quebec is going to lose everything it has demanded over the years to join the US.  While one state might upset the balance of things a smidge in the electoral college (if there are ever free and fair elections again), adding 7-8 likely Democratic states is something no Republican would go along with.  

Oh, and, yes, the norms of conquest and selling territories inhabited by people have changed over the years, so the international context is very different.

So, all this 51st state is beyond outlandish.  It is ridiculous, but it will live on because Trump likes to troll people and because ideas enter his depraved, demented skull and then get stuck and mutate.

* To be fair, any person working for Trump is going to be asked to justify the most batshit, the most cruel, the most self-destructive policies, so they are usually quite desperate and have only weak responses.  Of course, no one is forced to work for Trump, so the fact that they are stuck in a crappy position is entirely on them.  My new slogan for Trump 2.0 is "Empathy for Everyone Except Trumpers"