When Congress first convened in the new District of Columbia in 1800, it voted to assume “exclusive jurisdiction”—that is, legislative control over the new seat of government—a right given to Congress in the Constitution. The vote was not unanimous. Opponents argued that exclusive jurisdiction would mean that no residents would be able to vote for representatives in a government making decisions affecting them. Citizens would have no voice in the laws by which they would be governed, a situation that directly violated American democracy. Opponents also argued that national lawmakers shouldn’t have to make rules for the residents of what should grow into a small city. But that is what happened, with many fits and starts along the way. DC gained the right to elect a city government in 1802. As historian Steven J. Diner points out, “Congress generally ignored the capital and left its three local governments (Washington City, Georgetown, and Washington County) free to manage as best they could” until the Civil War. The end of Reconstruction brought the loss of elected government and a century of rule by Congress and the Executive Branch through three presidentially appointed commissioners. Elected government did not return until 1974, but it came with continued congressional oversight.
The campaign for statehood is designed to detach the city from its overseers. As these essays describe, the reluctance to “Free DC,” as a current slogan has it, stems in great measure from both sheer racism and partisan politics.
Is Statehood Possible? (Video)
On July 16, 2020, the DC History Center presented “Is Statehood Possible?” an online conversation between historian George Derek Musgrove and journalist Bob Levey on the history of statehood and its current prospects.
View video here
Imagining Statehood (Video)
On June 16, 2021, the DC History Center invited long-time DC statehood activists Anise Jenkins and Samuel Jordan to join Ty Hobson-Powell, a young activist, to discuss the movement for DC statehood: its roots, new and continuing stakes, and how statehood activism is adapting to the current political climate. Cosby Hunt, local history teacher and director of programming for the Center for Inspired Teaching joined the discussion as moderator.
View video here
Recommended Reading
“How White fears of ‘Negro domination’ kept D.C. disenfranchised for decades” by Meagan Flynn, Washington Post, April 14, 2021
“Democracy Deferred: Race, Politics, and D.C.’s Two-Century Struggle for Full Voting Rights,” a report for Statehood Research DC by George Derek Musgrove and Chris Myers Asch, March 2021.
The desire for self-determination, representation in Congress, and freedom from federal controls that keep Washington a colony have animated local activists since the city’s inception. Washingtonians have differed, however, on the shape that self-determination would and could take. After 1973 the idea of DC as the 51st state became the most popular strategy. Musgrove details how, between 1980 and 2017, statehood advocates flourished amid increasing Republican Party hostility yet consistently seemed unable to advance the cause. While the essay ends in 2017, and the future looks brighter for statehood today, the background remains essential reading.
Post-Trump Update: Bloomberg News discusses a new urgency in the calls for statehood based on the pandemic and the assault on the Capitol of January 6, 2021.
“The Debates over the Retrocession of the District of Columbia, 1801-2004,” by Mark David Richards, Washington History 16-1 (spring/summer 2004)
In 1846 what is now Alexandria and Arlington County were detached from the original diamond-shaped federal city and returned, or retroceded, to Virginia. Over the years since, opponents of Congress’s control of DC have looked at retrocession of the remaining territory back to Maryland, whence it originated, as a quick fix to the lack of citizenship rights. Richards looks back to the city’s beginning to uncover long-standing debates among DC residents and members of Congress over how to nullify Congress’s exclusive jurisdiction through returning the land given for the nation’s capital.
“The City under the Hill,” by Steven J. Diner, Washington History 8-1 (1996)
This closely argued discussion of the relationship between Washington, DC, and Congress summarizes why it has been marked by dysfunction, partisanship, and racism from the outset. The history of congressional neglect and intervention, of Congress members’ meddling in “local matters that mirrored national political issues,” and the sheer inefficiency of the arrangement make the case for separating local Washington from the seat of federal government.
Between Justice and Beauty: Race, Planning, and the Failure of Urban Policy in Washington, D.C., by Howard Gillette Jr. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)
Purchase online
In his landmark study of how the federal government used Washington as a laboratory for urban policy, Gillette shows how those policies failed the city and the nation. As he notes in the preface, “federal oversight of Washington in practice proved uneven at best and at times disastrous. To some degree, such failures were the product of incompetence or indifference. . . . [but] what happened in Washington, D.C., was what the nation wanted.” In other words, he argues, the nation’s racism allowed the keepers of Washington to prioritize beauty over the needs of the city’s disadvantaged and social justice in general. While he doesn’t conclude with an endorsement of statehood, he does endorse political separation.
“Reconstruction Politics in Washington: ‘An Experimental Garden for Radical Plants,’” by Thomas R. Johnson, Records of the Columbia Historical Society 50 (1980)
Johnson’s essay explains how DC lost its rights to self-governance in 1874, emphasizing the corruption of Alexander R. “Boss” Shepherd and how the white public wrongly blamed the loss on Black Washingtonians. While statehood does not play a role in his discussion, Johnson clearly connects the impact of the application of federal politics and of commonly accepted systemic racism to show how in 1874 DC entered a century of colonial rule by Congress.
Captive Capital: Colonial Life in Modern Washington, by Sam Smith (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974)
Journalist Sam Smith’s now classic history of the city’s political struggles is also a book-length call for statehood. Smith records that a DC Statehood Committee was founded by Black activists in 1969 as the first modern group to call for statehood. He notes that the group then went quiet, and the issue re-emerged as the basis of the new Statehood Party, formed to back Julius Hobson’s 1971 campaign for DC delegate to the House of Representatives. (Hobson lost to Walter Fauntroy.) Smith was part of a small group of activists who developed the statehood manifesto and the political party that continues today. Please note: Captive Capital is out of print, but is available at area libraries and via the online used book market.
From Our Collections
Once the Kiplinger Research Library reopens with remote reference services, researchers will have access to these key collections related to the history of the campaigns for statehood.
Home Rule and Representation ephemera (E 1304)
Includes bumper stickers, teabags, open letters, and petitions national support for DC home rule, compiled from several different sources. Digitized in its entirety.
League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia ephemera (E 1670)
Includes petitions, brochures, and a booklet called “D. C. Last Colony: Self-Government for the District of Columbia.” Digitized in its entirety.
D.C. Statehood Party records (MS 0816)
This collection documents the day-to-day business of the D.C. Statehood Party from 1970-1986. The records contain campaign posters, as well as financial documents, by-laws, campaign materials, and files of two of the party’s founders; Hilda Mason and Josephine (Jo) Butler. Also included are some of the party’s campaign posters.
District of Columbia Home Rule Research Collection, 1788-1980 (bulk 1971-1980) (MS 0320)
This collection contains clippings, government documents, bibliographic notes, and other materials related to DC home rule issues, DC representation in the U.S. House of Congress, and DC voting rights. The collection includes information about individuals such as Walter Fauntroy and Marion Barry, issues such as racial tension and racial balance in DC, documents on Federal legislation related to organization and reorganization of DC government, and Federal Government documents related to controlling civil disturbances.
Evening Star Twenty-Third Amendment Campaign scrapbook (MS 0797) Mary Grace (M. G.) Bassett, journalist and lawyer, wrote for The Washington Post, The Evening Star, and King Features Syndicate in Washington, D.C., from 1952 to 1976. This scrapbook traces the campaign for the passage of the 23rd Amendment by the Evening Star; most of the articles written as part of the campaign appear under a Bassett byline.
Jesse C. Suter and Theodore W. Noyes papers, 1877-1961 (MS 0260)
Personal papers and correspondence of Washington, D.C., journalists and civic leaders Jesse C. Suter and Theodore W. Noyes documenting their interests in the city’s civic affairs. Topics include fiscal reform, home rule, national representation, public schools, suffrage, and temperance. Includes newspaper clippings, journals, memorabilia, scrapbooks, and Suter’s collection of items related to Abraham Lincoln. Correspondents include the Capital Transit Company, the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, the United Dry Forces of America, and the Voteless D.C. League of Women Voters.
Other Resources
From Our Partners’ Collections
D.C. Statehood Movement Leaders Oral History Project
Washingtoniana, the People’s Archive, DC Public Library
Voting Rights Basics
To learn the basics of the history of DC voting rights in family-oriented activities, check out our Voting, Self-Determination, and Statehood teaching resources.
Build Your Library
And check out these local bookstores: Mahogany Books, Loyalty Bookstores, Sankofa, Wisdom Book Center, Harambee Books, Second Story Books, Politics and Prose
Funding for Context for Today was provided from from the Office of the Secretary of the District of Columbia, and HumanitiesDC and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) as part of the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those of NEH.