By MDBayNews Staff
A provocative political phrase has been circulating in conservative online circles: “Make DC square again.” It sounds like a meme—and in many ways, it is—but the slogan draws on a real historical episode and a long-running constitutional debate about the size and shape of the nation’s capital.
At its core, the idea calls for reversing an 1846–1847 decision by Congress to return the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia—today’s Arlington County and the city of Alexandria—back to Virginia. Doing so would restore the original 10-mile-by-10-mile federal district envisioned at the nation’s founding.
While the proposal has gained renewed attention amid partisan fights over redistricting, state control, and DC governance, it remains far from a serious legislative effort. Still, the history behind it is worth understanding.
The Original Square Capital
When the capital was established under the Residence Act of 1790, the District of Columbia was laid out as a perfect square—rotated into a diamond—totaling 100 square miles. Land was ceded by both Maryland and Virginia, encompassing what is now Washington, DC, plus Alexandria and present-day Arlington.
The goal was clear: a neutral federal district, not beholden to any single state, with enough land to grow into a major national capital.
That vision did not last long.
Why Virginia Took Its Land Back
In 1846, Congress approved the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District back to Virginia. Residents of Alexandria and the surrounding county complained of economic neglect, lack of representation, and concerns that Congress would soon abolish the slave trade in the District—an outcome that materialized in 1850.
By 1847, the transfer was complete. The District shrank to roughly 68 square miles, all on the Maryland side of the Potomac, where it remains today.
An Unsettled Constitutional Question
Supporters of reversing retrocession argue that Congress never had the constitutional authority to permanently shrink the federal district once it was established. They point to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress exclusive control over the seat of government but does not explicitly authorize reducing its size.
The Supreme Court brushed up against the issue in Phillips v. Payne (1875), but declined to rule on the constitutionality of retrocession itself, instead dismissing the challenge on procedural grounds. That has allowed the argument—however remote—to linger.
Even prominent figures once shared doubts. President William Howard Taft repeatedly called the retrocession a mistake and urged Congress to reclaim the land, citing security, planning, and constitutional concerns. His successor, Woodrow Wilson, reportedly saw no constitutional barrier either, though neither succeeded in changing the status quo.
The Modern Political Appeal
Today’s “Make DC square again” push is driven less by urban planning than by raw politics.
If Arlington and Alexandria were returned to the District, roughly 400,000 voters—who currently vote in Virginia—would instead be counted in DC. That could significantly alter Virginia’s congressional map, potentially eliminating a reliably Democratic seat and reshaping statewide elections.
For conservative activists frustrated by Democratic control in Virginia and by DC’s outsized influence in national politics, the idea is an appealing thought experiment. Some have even floated draft executive orders or lawsuits urging federal action.
But that is where the idea largely ends.
Why It’s Not Happening
Despite the viral chatter, there is no active bill in Congress, no pending lawsuit, and no serious bipartisan support for undoing a 178-year-old boundary settlement.
The obstacles are enormous:
- Virginia’s opposition would be overwhelming.
- Residents of Arlington and Alexandria show no interest in leaving Virginia.
- Congress would almost certainly need to act.
- Courts are unlikely to reopen a matter treated as settled for generations.
Even supporters quietly acknowledge that the proposal functions more as a political signal than a realistic plan.
Related — and Competing — Ideas
Ironically, some Republicans have promoted the opposite approach: shrinking DC even further by returning most residential areas to Maryland while preserving a small federal enclave for the Capitol, White House, and Mall. Others continue to push for DC statehood, which would leave boundaries mostly intact.
Each proposal underscores the same reality: debates over DC’s borders are ultimately about power, representation, and federalism—not geometry.
Bottom Line
“Make DC square again” is a catchy slogan with deep historical roots, but little practical momentum. It reflects frustration with modern political alignments more than a viable path forward.
For now, the District of Columbia will remain exactly as it has since 1847—no longer square, legally complex, and perpetually at the center of America’s unresolved arguments about governance and representation.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.