Skip to main content

This Day in Legal History -- Four States Admitted to the Union

By

On this day in legal history four states were admitted to the Union: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington. That’s a lot of states at one time, and it wasn’t easy.

Article IV, sec. 3 of the US Constitution establishes Congress’ power to create new states. The procedure for new states usually involves the potential state starting out as a territory, although some states became states without ever being territories, like California and Texas, and some states remained territories for years before becoming states, 60 years in the case of New Mexico. The usual procedure was for Congress to pass a resolution calling on the territory to draft a constitution. Congress would then approve the proposed state’s constitution and pass an enabling act to admit the state, or delegate the admission to the President by use of a resolution. In some cases, like the admission of these four states, the process, got, a little more politicized.

During the 1880’s the western territories began to become states, but it was a question of when and in what form their statehood would be granted. It was well known in Congress that the Dakota Territory leaned Republican, which is why Senate Republicans had a plan to divide the state and solidify their power. The Democratic House would allow Dakota in as one state not two. Republicans blocked all other state admissions until they got their way. A great deal of jockeying ensued over the next few sessions of Congress with the admission of a Democratic Montana being balanced against a Republican Washington with the result that Dakota eventually went ahead and elected a state legislature. The election of 1888 forced both parties’ hands. Republicans took control of the Presidency and the House (they already controlled the Senate), leaving the lame-duck House Democrats potentially having no successes to demonstrate. The pressure to get something done compelled the House Democrats to cave; Dakota would be split into North and South, Montana and Washington would be admitted, and Democratic New Mexico would have to wait.

The states were finally admitted (see 25 Stat. 676), but not without a long list of conditions as part of the enabling statute. The law mandates things like public schools “free from sectarian control” (fear of encroaching Mormons from Utah) and restrictions on the sale of land granted to the state by the federal government. Upon the passage of this law and its signature these former territories had become part of the United States.

The process of a territory becoming a state may seem quaint and out-dated, but it is still very much alive. There is always talk of Democratic District of Columbia becoming a state, often in exchange for solidly Republican Utah being granted another seat in the House of Representatives, so the idea of new states is not something of the past. It would also seem that wrangling about statehood is also something that is still with us.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more