Talk:Admission to the Union

Notability

While each individual admission of a territory as a state into the United States maybe notable, the subject of the generic event may not meet WP:EVENT. Therefore, I have tagged this article. I think perhaps this article should be made as a redirect to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union, with the content here moved to that page, as an explanation/background of the process of admission, and possibly expanded. Moreover, the section U.S. state#Admission into the union is already larger than this entire article, and perhaps that is a better redirect target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be a separate article because there are general legal and constitutional issues that belong under this topic that would not fit into a mere list. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with keeping this article - it is its own separate topic and while admission to the Union has varied in how it happened, there are a great many common legal, political, and practical principals that apply to all or most cases. Additionally, WP:EVENT doesn't apply because this article isn't about an event but about a persistent legal, political, and practical concept. Granted, it is one that has resulted in several events, but this is the article about the concept behind the events, not necessarily the event itself - similar to how Elections in the United States relates to United States elections, 2014 - the former is the concept, the latter is the event. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

State Border Changes

I appreciate the paragraph at the end of the The process of admission section that addresses changes to the borders of established states, and I appreciate that the list includes "numerous minor adjustments to state boundaries over the years due to improved surveys, resolution of ambiguous or disputed boundary definitions, or minor mutually agreed boundary adjustments for administrative convenience or other purposes." However there are some such border changes involving areas which, although they may have been sparsely populated at the time, are geographically too large to be considered minor. They are...

• the addition to the State of Missouri of the area east of the Missouri River at the northwest corner of the state on March 28, 1837,
• the additions to the State of Nevada on May 5, 1866 and January 18, 1867,

and especially

• the huge part of the State of Texas that was transferred to the U.S. government in exchange for their assumption of Texas' debts on September 9, 1850.

I got my information from the article titled Territorial evolution of the United States. By the way, based on the introduction in that article, I think we both failed to include Georgia in our lists. Unless I'm mistaken, the Southwest Territory was only the North Carolina cession of its Washington District.

HankW512 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed States

I'm surprised this article has neither a section about proposed states that have not yet been admitted nor a link to such a section in another article. I would like very much to learn the reason(s) for the long delay in presenting the people of Puerto Rico with another referendum regarding the commonwealth's status. I fully agree with the U.S. government's response to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood, which was the January 17, 2014 request of, and offer to pay for, another referendum regarding status to be presented to the Puerto Rican people due to the poor wording of the November 6, 2012 referendum on which the statehood request was based.

HankW512 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there have been many proposed states that never got admitted and became parts of other states later. I think something about proposals concerning Puerto Rico should be added. Puerto Rico may become a state. Should something about the proposal to make Baja Arizona a separate state be here? If the article gets far more detailed than it is now, then probably it should. Or the failed proposal in the 1960s to make New York City a separate state? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1790 and Maine

Is the sentence "The legislature of Massachusetts consented to the admission of Maine in 1790" correct? Did Massachusetts really consent to this 30 years before it happened? --Jfruh (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I quickly poked around for a source for this and have not yet found one. I'll look some more in the next day or two, and if I don't find something, will delete or tag the sentence. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the article history to see who added this information, in hopes of asking that editor if he or she could provide a cite, but it appears the edit was by an IP that we won't be able to reach (see this edit). I will keep searching. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've still be unable to find any support for this claim, so I have removed it from the article. Thanks, @Jfruh:. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a typo for "1819" introduced by me. I think 1819 is right. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I think 1819 is right, I was surprised to learn from Madison's notes that in 1787 when the Constitution was being drafted, the admission of Maine to the Union in the near future was already anticipated. While writing the admission-to-the-Union clause of the Constitution, the drafters discussed the probable near-future admissions of Mayne [sic], Kentucky, Vermont, and Franklin. Franklin was never admitted and Maine waited another 33 years after that. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

The following is extremely misleading:

Although the use of an enabling act was a common historic practice, a number of territories drafted constitutions for submission to Congress without one, and were admitted to the Union.

A reader could think that it means no state was ever admitted to the Union without first submitting a constitution to Congress. That is false: Congress passed an act admitting Kentucky to the Union before Kentucky's constitution was drafted. I changed it to read as follows:

Although the use of an enabling act was a common historic practice, a number of states were admitted to the Union without one.

This edit by "Drdpw" misses the point as completely as can be imagined. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) @Drdpw: @TJRC:

It makes no sense to start a discussion on my revert only to revert me before there's been any discussion. That said, while your point is debatable, your edit is not inaccurate, so case closed I guess. Drdpw (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarity about variations in the process of admitting states to the Union

We need to make this article clear about several points:

• For which states was an enabling act passed, and which states were admitted to the Union without one?
• Which states drafted a proposed state constitution before Congress passed an act admitting them to the Union, and which drafted their state constitutions after Congress acted to admit them? (Kentucky is in the latter category: The Senate passed an act in January 1791, and the House of Representatives on February 4, 1791, saying Kentucky shall be admitted to the Union on June 1, 1792 (well over a year later). Kentucky's constitution was drafted after that.
• Among those that drafted constitutions before Congress acted, which states submitted proposed state constitutions to Congress and which did not?
• For which states did the president have to sign something (other than the act of Congress admitting the state) in order to admit the state, and for which states did that not happen?
• In which cases did an entire organized incorporated territory become a state, and in which did only part of such a territory become a state, and in which cases did some region of unorganized territory become a state, and in which cases did something else happen?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent questions. I can spend some time over the next few weeks exploring these questions, unless you're already doing so alfready. BTW, the answer to the last one can be found at List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admission to the Union. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615223442/http://www.museumoftheredriver.org/choctaw.html to http://www.museumoftheredriver.org/choctaw.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.danvillekentucky.com/list/member/constitution-square-historic-site-28lwebsite%3Ddanvillekentucky.com

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Admission process

The admission process section is not clear on the legal mechanism for forming a state. It blends the legal requirements, the usual procedures (constitutional conventions), and the territorial history. It would be helpful if these would be addressed separately. And it doesn't talk at all about the parliamentary procedures in Congress. In particular:

• Is a statehood proposal first taken up by a committee?
• Is a simple majority of both houses sufficient?
• Article IV:3:1 seems to say that Congress admits new states on its own (plenary power), so what exactly is the role of the presidential proclamation? If the president chooses not to issue such a proclamation, does that in effect veto the accession? Or is the proclamation just a symbolic formalism with no legal value?

Thanks --Macrakis (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Vote required to add state?

Readers come here from Google looking for the number of votes required in congress to add a state, and I can't seem to find anything about this mentioned in the article. Is it 2/3 majority in both house and senate? Can we add this? Cstanford.math (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a simple majority vote. I'll add to the article. --Jfruh (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, the text of the constitution on the subject (which we have in the article) just says "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." When the Constitution says "Congress may do X" without specifying any supermajority requirement, that means X only requires a majority (in both hoses) of those voting to be passed. --Jfruh (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jfruh: – Actually, when the Constitution says "Congress may do X" without specifying any vote requirement, that means Congress can set whatever vote threshold it chooses for adoption, usually a simple majority, but necessarily. The way you have edited the sentence in the lead is inaccurate as the Constitution says nothing about vote threshold for admittance. Drdpw (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Constitutionally, Congress can carry out any of its powers via a majority vote that aren't specifically mandated as having higher supermajority requirements. The houses can set internal procedural rules that set supermajority requirements, but those rules are just that -- internal rules, not laws -- and can themselves be negated by a simple majority vote (see e.g., the Nuclear option). Since we're specifically talking here about the constitution, it seems to me that this is the important point to make. There is no constitutional supermajority requirement to admitting a new state, which is I believe what the original question was asking. --Jfruh (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)