Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:24:30.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statehood and the Governance of the District of Columbia: An Historical Analysis of Policy Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Steven J. Diner
Steven J. Diner
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In November 1990 voters in the District of Columbia elected two “shadow” United States senators (one of whom is former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson) and one “shadow” representative to lobby for statehood. Statehood bills have been introduced in Congress regularly since 1982 and committee hearings on statehood were held in the fall of 1991 and the spring of 1992. Although only recently has there been serious discussion about District statehood, the issue of the proper relationship of the national government to the federal city has been a matter of debate since 1787. This article provides a historical analysis of statehood and alternative policy options and aruges that the relationship between the federal government and the District has always mirrored national polit.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 389 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bowling, Kenneth R., The Creation of Washington, D. C.: The Idea and Location of the American Capital (Fairfax, Va., 1991), 1–42Google Scholar; Green, Constance M., Washington: Village and Capital, 1800–1878 (Princeton, 1962), 8–11.Google Scholar

2. Ibid.

3. Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John, The Federalist (London, 1948), 219Google Scholar; Bowling, The Creation of Washington, 74–105, 182–207; Green, Washington, 11.

4. Tindall, William, Origins and Government of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C., 1912), 17–18.Google Scholar

5. Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 25.

6. National Intelligencer, 29, 31 December 1800; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 24–25.

7. Bryan, W. B., Various Forms of Local Government in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C., 1898), 6–7.Google Scholar

8. U.S. Congress, An Act to Incorporate the Inhabitants of the City of Washington in the District is Columbia, 3 May 1902.

9. “District of Columbia Memorial of Citizens,” U.S. Senate, 50th Cong., Mis. Doc. no. 126 (Washington, D.C., 1888), 6–8.

10. Bryan, Forms of Local Government, 7–12; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 88–89, 162–63.

11. U.S. Senate, The Southard Report, Doc. 97, 23C, 2d S. 268 ser., 2 February 1835; D.C. Citizens' Association, Washington City—The National Capital: Memorial to Congress (Washington, D.C, 1894), 2–14.Google Scholar

12. Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 29–30, 86, 88, 133; Rimensnyder, Nelson, Local Government in the District of Columbia, 1901–1978 (Washington, D.C, 1978), 17–18.Google Scholar

13. U.S. House of Representatives, Report 32 (February 25, 1846), 5–9.

14. Noyes, Theodore W., “The Presidents and the National Capital,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society 20 (1917): 68.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., 771–72.

16. Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 332–33.

17. Maury, William M., Alexander “Boss” Shepherd and the Board of Public Works (Washington, D.C, 1975), 1–4Google Scholar; Whyte, James H., The Uncivil War: Washington During Reconstruction, 1865–1878 (New York, 1958), 59–89Google Scholar; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 335–36.

18. Jesse Lane Keeley, Democracy or Despotism in the Nation's Capital (privately printed, 1939), 157–64; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 336.

19. U.S. House of Representatives, House Report 647: Government of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C, 1974), 29Google Scholar; Maury, Alexander Shepherd, 46–49; Bryan, “Forms of Local Government,” 15–16; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 360–62.

20. Keeley, Democracy or Despotism, 191–204; Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 391–92.

21. Keeley, Democracy or Despotism, 208–9.

22. Henry B. Macfarland, address on “District Day” at the Buffalo Exposition, 3 September 1901, copy in Washington Division, Martin Luther King, Jr., Public Library.

23. Noyes, “Presidents and the Nation's Capital,” 89.

24. Joint Executive Committee of the Citizens' Associations of the District of Columbia, Memorial to Congress Against the Repeal of the Fifty Per Cent Annual Congressional Appropriation Law (Washington, D.C, 1894)Google Scholar; Green, Constance M., Washington: Capital City, 1879–1950 (Princeton, 1963), 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 179–86; Financial Relations of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government from 1871 to 1912 (Washington Board of Trade, 19 January 1912); see also Macfarland, Henry B. F., The Nation's Relations with Its Capital City: The Building of Washington and the Establishment of a Permanent System of Government (Washington Herald, 1914).Google Scholar

25. Report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C, 1972), 2: 71.Google Scholar

26. U.S. Senate, 50th Cong., lst sess., Memorial of Citizens, Senate Mis. Doc. no. 126 (Washington, D.C, 1888).

27. James Bronson Reynolds, Recommendations to the President of the United States Regarding the Administration of the Affairs of the District of Columbia (1907), 15–16.

28. Dodd, Walter F., The Government of the District of Columbia: A Study in Federal and Municipal Administration (Washington, D.C, 1909), 274, 278–81.Google Scholar

29. Anthony J. Thompson, “The Story of the Twenty Third Amendment,” unpublished paper [1965?], copy in Washingtoniana Division, Martin Luther King, Jr., Public Library, 10–11; “Shall the Principles for Which the Revolutionary Patriots Waged a Successful Seven Years’ War Be Reapplied in the District of Columbia,” pamphlet, 1903, copy in Washingtoniana Division, 12; Keeley, Democracy or Despotism, 215–17.

30. Dodd, The Government of the District of Columbia, 247.

31. U.S. Senate, The Government of the District of Columbia: A Memorial by the District Suffrage League, 62d Cong., 3dsess., Document no. 1138 (Washington, D.C., 1913), 4, 7, 14.

32. Claflin, Roy C., Representation of the District of Columbia in Congress by a Delegate (Washington, D.C., 1915), 5–6.Google Scholar

33. Americanizing the People of the District of Columbia by Granting Them Representation: Speech of the Hon. Richard W. Austin (Washington, D.C., 1919), 4–5Google Scholar; Green, Washington: Capital City, 254; Thompson, “Story of the Twenty Third Amendment,” 13.

34. Noyes, Theodore W., Americanize Washington as a Wise Measure of War-Preparedness (Washington, D.C., 1917), 11.Google Scholar

35. Green, Washington: Capital City, 254–56; Washington Star, 4, 5 November 1928; Washington Herald, 7 November 1928.

36. Green, Washington: Capital City, 431, 440.

37. Ibid., 234–35.

38. Merlo J. Pusey, The District Crisis: A Series of Ten Articles Reprinted from the Washington Post (1937), 3–4; U.S. House Committee on the District of Columbia, The Organisation of Government for the District of Columbia: Letter from Griffenhagen Associates (Washington, D.C., 1939), 5.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., U.S. House Committee on the District of Columbia, The Federal Payment to the District of Columbia, 1790–1980. (Washington, D.C., 1979), 21.Google Scholar

40. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Memorandum on Congressional Representation for the District, February 1947 (Washington, D.C., 1947), 2–3Google Scholar; A History of the League of Women Voters for the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C., 1960), 71.Google Scholar

41. Columbia Heights Bulletin, 23 May 1935; Washington Star, 18 May and 16, 17 August 1940; Washington Post, 16 August 1940.

42. Derthick, Martha, City Politics in Washington, D.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 170Google Scholar; Green, Washington: Capital City, 495–96; History of the League of Women Voters, 71.

43. Derthick, City Politics in Washington, 48, 53.

44. U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations, Reorganisation Plan No. 5 of 1952: Hearings, May 15 and 20, 1952 (Washington, D.C, 1952), 1–2.Google Scholar

45. Ibid., 48, 53; U.S. Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Charter Act: Hearings (Washington, D.C, 1958), 107.Google Scholar

46. Washington Post, 20 March 1952, 29 November 1956, 4, 5 August 1959; Washington Star, 1 March 1953, 28 November and 2 December 1965, 19 March 1959; Washington Times-Herald, 20 March and 23 November 1952, 21 September 1953; Washington Daily News, 29 November 1956; Roy P. Franchino, “The Constitutionality of Home Rule and National Representation for the District of Columbia, Part II: Retrocession and National Representation,” Georgetown Law Journal 46 (Spring 1958): 377–417.Google Scholar

47. Thompson, “The Story of the Twenty-third Amendment”; Washington Star, 21 March 1961.

48. U.S. House of Representatives, Home Rule for the District of Columbia: Communication from the President of the United States, House Document No. 254, 8 August 1965.

49. Mike McManus, “Bill Press: The Quiet Power Man of the Board of Trade,” Washingtonian 5 (November 1969): 47; James Irwin Moore, “The 1967 Reorganization of the District of Columbia Government” (research paper, Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma), 31–33, copy in Washingtoniana Division; Washington Post, 4 September 1965.

50. Elfenbein, Jessica I., Civics, Commerce and Community: The History of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, 1889–1989 (Dubuque, Iowa, 1989), 75–83Google Scholar; Diner, Steven J., The Center of a Metropolis: Washington Since 1954 (Washington, D.C, 1980), 42–54.Google Scholar

51. Derthick, City Politics in Washington, 64.

52. Hanson, Royce, The Anatomy of the Federal Interest (Washington, D.C, 1967), 50.Google Scholar

53. Moore, “1967 Reorganisations,” 136;U.S. House Committee on Government Operations, Reorganizations Plan No. 3 of 1967: Hearings, June 13–22, 1967 (Washington, D.C., 1967)Google Scholar; U.S. House Committee on the District of Columbia, D.C. Reorganization Proposals: Hearings, July 31, 1967 (Washington, D.C, 1967), 220.Google Scholar

54. Diner, Steven J., The Governance of Education in the District of Columbia: An Historical Analysis of Current Issues (Washington, D.C, 1982), 16–27, 41–45.Google Scholar

55. “Special Message to Congress about the District of Columbia,” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C, 1971), 327–29Google Scholar; Report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia, 17 August 1972, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1972), xv–xvii.Google Scholar

56. Report of Commission of Organization of Government of D.C, 1972, xvii, 22.

57. Newman, Jason I. and DuPuy, Jacques B., “Bringing Democracy to the Nation's Last Colony: The District of Columbia Self-Government Act,” American University Law Review 24 (Spring 1975): 537–747Google Scholar; Public Law 93–198, 93d Cong., S. 1435, 24 December 1973; House Committee on the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act: Report (Washington, D.C, 1973).Google Scholar

58. Perry, Frank Sprigg, “The State of Columbia,” Georgetown Law Journal (April 1921): 1–15Google Scholar; J. E. Jones, Unconstitutional and Un-American Misrule of Washington, D.C: An Appeal to Reason (1945), copy in Washingtoniana Division; Washington Star, 22 April 1959.

59. The Congressional Digest 57 (October 1978): 245–47; Washington Post, 23 August 1978, A-4; Walter Berns, “Rome on the Potomac,” Harper's, January 1979, 31–33.

60. Washington Post, 31 July, 2 August, 24 September, and 1, 10 October 1981.

61. Washington Post, 17 December 1987; 30 June, 7, 18, 31 July, and 29 September 1988; 4, 5 October 1989.

62. Washington Post, 28 February and 6, 11 March 1990.