The Political Price of Statehood
A biting critique of territorial delegate Voorhees and the onerous conditions proposed for Washington's entry into the Union.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
There is one point in the platform upon which Mr. Voorhees was elected to which he has been faithful, and which he pledged himself to carry out. The Democratic Convention, in adopting the admission plank of the platform of 1884, is committed to the admission of this Territory on terms of equality with all other States. On the contrary, Mr. Voorhees is responsible for the introduction of a bill for the admission of Washington, not on terms of equality with all other States, but imposing terms which would render her inferior to all other members of the sisterhood. The Voorhees admission bill smacks too much of paternal government. The people of this Territory are fit to govern themselves, or they are not. If they are not, the Territory should not be admitted into the Union. If they are—and who shall say they are not?—the Territory should be admitted as other States have been admitted, without conditions, save the one common to all other States in the Union. If Washington Territory cannot go into the Union as an equal, she does not wish to go at all.
“If Washington Territory cannot go into the Union as an equal, she does not wish to go at all.”
This 1886 editorial captures the early Seattle frustration with federal paternalism. It echoes modern debates about the autonomy of the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico, questioning why territories must suffer 'humiliating' conditions to attain the sovereignty granted to other states.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.