WI Texas, California and New York were given membership in the UN in 1945?

The Ukraine and Belarus were given UN member status in 1945 despite being non sovereign, constituent republics of the USSR.

If the USSR got three (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazahstan?) UN members under Moscow's sovereignty and the US was given the same deal, Texas, California, and New York becoming UN members under DC's sovereignty, what would happen?

Would this lead to more regionalism in the US or at it's most extreme full independence decades down the line?
 
At the time, going by population, it is far more likely that it would have been New York, California, and Pennsylvania that got seats; Texas was on its way to the top but was still lagging behind, with Illinois and Ohio probably getting preference over it. The problem over whether Pennsylvania should cede its seat to the third most populous state, which would be Texas after the 1980 census, would not be raised for about three or so decades.

Ignoring that however, there is the problem in that the State Ambassadors would not be allowed to truly form a foreign policy, their treaty-making abilities being largely voided by the US Constitution, meaning that as a bloc they may well have to toe the line of the Federal Government beyond minor discussions regarding support of certain causes. Ultimately I can't see it changing all that much other than making the American presence at the United Nations a wee bit awkward, especially once the Soviet Union collapses leaving the United States as the only nation with multiple representatives.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
At the time, going by population, it is far more likely that it would have been New York, California, and Pennsylvania that got seats; Texas was on its way to the top but was still lagging behind, with Illinois and Ohio probably getting preference over it. The problem over whether Pennsylvania should cede its seat to the third most populous state, which would be Texas after the 1980 census, would not be raised for about three or so decades.

Ignoring that however, there is the problem in that the State Ambassadors would not be allowed to truly form a foreign policy, their treaty-making abilities being largely voided by the US Constitution, meaning that as a bloc they may well have to toe the line of the Federal Government beyond minor discussions regarding support of certain causes. Ultimately I can't see it changing all that much other than making the American presence at the United Nations a wee bit awkward, especially once the Soviet Union collapses leaving the United States as the only nation with multiple representatives.
The U.S. Constitution can be amended to allow this.

Also, putting Texas on the UN in place of Pennsylvania would add US regional balance to the UN.
 
The U.S. Constitution can be amended to allow this.

Also, putting Texas on the UN in place of Pennsylvania would add US regional balance to the UN.
I seriously doubt that a Constitutional Amendment would ever be in the works, as that would result in a direct threat to Federal Supremacy when it comes to foreign policy, even if carefully worded, and could bring up the issue of nullification when it came to international treaties or alliances where a State might not prefer the Federal position. Really, nothing good would come of it, and I imagine most in Washington would know this (hell, its part of the reason why they opted not to offer States to the United Nations in the first place).

I also doubt that regional balance will matter, as these Ambassadors would be little more than Yes-Men for the official American Ambassador, whether appointed by the President himself or by the Governors of the respective States. In another sense those I suggested were also critical States in terms of winning a Presidential Election, unlike Texas which at the time was firmly Democratic, so the honorary role may well boost Harry Truman and other Democrats in those States (if in a minor sense at least).
 
The Ukraine and Belarus were given UN member status in 1945 despite being non sovereign, constituent republics of the USSR.

If the USSR got three (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazahstan?) UN members under Moscow's sovereignty and the US was given the same deal
Would Puerto Rico and Guam not work better?
 
That would open up the huge can of worms known as states rights as I don't think that Texas New York or California would like there pepole being puppets but in the end I think that a deal would be struck allowing the states to have an independent policy on seconed their and third teir issues .
 
The US could just instead have Alaska and Hawaii, or maybe one of them and Puerto Rico instead.

Probably butterflies their statehood, however.
 
It would be politically impossible (even if it were constitutionally permissible) to favor one state over another this way. Stalin didn't have to worry about Uzbeks complaining that Ukrainians were getting an advantage they lacked...
 
Top