By Edward D. Martin Jr.
Alaska did not enter the Union by accident. It entered under a specific design.
When Congress admitted Alaska as a state, it understood something fundamental: Alaska had no private land base, no established property tax system, and no realistic way to support self-government using the same tools as other states. Therefore, Congress chose a different model: instead of funding Alaska through ongoing federal support, statehood was structured around land.
Alaska was given the right to select vast amounts of federal land over time— land meant to support communities, enable local government, and form the economic foundation of a self-governing state. This land was not symbolic. It was intended to function as Alaska’s substitute for the internal improvement grants and revenue mechanisms earlier states had relied upon.
Land was how Alaska was expected to grow up. That design matters because it explains many conflicts Alaskans argue about today.
The Statehood Act does not require the federal government to give up all the land nor does it prohibit federal withdrawals. However, it does repeatedly tie Alaska’s land selections to community development, expansion, and practical use. The Act anticipates towns that did not yet exist. It requires land to be selected in workable, connected areas. It treats land access as a continuing responsibility of state government, not as a one-time gift.
In plain terms, statehood promised that enough land would remain available, accessible, and usable for Alaska to build local authority and long-term fiscal capacity. That promise never fully materialized.
Over time, large portions of land became unavailable or difficult to use. Development clustered unevenly. Local governments formed slowly or not at all. Yet the responsibilities of statehood never changed. Alaska was still expected to educate its children, maintain infrastructure, and govern a vast territory.
Rather than insisting on land access, Alaska adapted to land restrictions. Centralized revenue replaced local tax bases. Bureaucracy substituted for settlement. The Permanent Fund became a stabilizer for the volatility that land was once expected to absorb. Dividends became a stand-in for equity that ownership and local development were supposed to provide.
Although the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act resolved Native (ANCSA) land claims and was both historic and necessary, it did not replace the broader land-based framework statehood promised. Neither ANCSA nor the Permanent Fund was intended to substitute for local self-government. Both became part of a system that managed around an unfinished design instead of completing it.
This issue is a result of policy choices planting certain seeds— the seeds of federal overreach mixed with state avoidance— and over time those seeds produced predictable results: dependency, division, and endless conflict over money instead of responsibility.
Common sense tells us this: a durable self-government cannot be built without a functioning land system. Local responsibility cannot be expected without local authority. And symptoms cannot be managed forever without addressing the root cause.
Alaska was not meant to beg. It was meant to build. Until we realign modern policy with the land-based design embedded in statehood, we will keep arguing over the weeds rather than restoring the ground they grew from.
Edward Martin, Jr. is a retired 50+ year IUOE, General Contractor and long-time Alaskan with a strong belief in the National and State Constitutions and the inherent rights of citizens. He devotes his retirement to investigating Constitutional violation(s) in hopes of protecting the eternal rights of liberty.
COMING SOON: keep an eye out for the coming-soon column addressing what Alaskans and the Legislature can do to begin restoring land-based self-government.
Getting all of the land that is owed would be a good place to start. There are currently 28,699,259 acres that are still in the tentatively approved status but do not yet belong to the state with another 5.2 million acres remaining to fulfill the land entitlement agreed to upon statehood. Letting the feds know that we expect our lands to be turned over and that we will be managing them would go a long way towards self governance.
Steve-O, that’s exactly the right starting point. Alaska’s land entitlement under the Statehood Act was not discretionary—it was a condition of admission on equal footing with the other states. The fact that millions of acres remain in “tentatively approved” status decades later is a structural barrier to self-governance.
Until title is finalized and management authority actually rests with the state, Alaska is governing with one hand tied. Clear ownership is what allows planning, stewardship, development, and accountability to function.
Finishing the land transfer isn’t radical or confrontational—it’s simply completing statehood as it was agreed to. That’s how self-governance moves from theory into practice. Your right once again thanks Ed
Well-written commentary; again, Alaska continues to find itself immersed in a rather nascent developmental State. If Your marital partner knows what they want & you don’t, then your partner takes the lead. Alaska and Alaskans will take a medium-to-long-term view and commitment when they in fact remain in Alaska. Like democracies, of which change their leadership to promote fairness and representative leadership, Alaskans will remain in a struggle over State custodianship versus national ones, so-long as Alaskans avoid filling their ranks with persons who understand, live and promote market economics. The other appropriately used two key words: “beg” being one of them. When Alaska finally takes control of their lands, their futures, only then might Alaskans be free of the yokes that promote a “bigger attitude”. That will happen only once Alaskans understand that money doesn’t just show up…. It is earned.
Fred, thank you for the thoughtful comment. I agree with your closing point in particular: money doesn’t just show up—it is earned.
Alaska’s ongoing struggle isn’t about a lack of work ethic or commitment; it’s about structure. When land, access, and decision-making are centralized or locked away, effort can’t easily convert into ownership or opportunity. That’s when people are pushed toward petitioning instead of producing—not by choice, but by policy.
A healthy market economy requires accessible land and local control so work, risk, and responsibility can matter again. Restoring that pathway is how Alaskans earn their future—without waiting, asking, or “begging.”
As far as I’m concerned, the federal government can just get the hell out of Alaska. Only then will self-governance start and move forward.
No road maintenance, no economic benefit from the military, no USCG, no USFS or FDA. Think John.
John, the Constitution gives real context to what you’re saying. Alaska was admitted under the Statehood Act on the promise of the Equal Footing Doctrine—that Alaska would stand as a co-equal sovereign state, not remain under continuing federal control.
The problem is that this promise was never fully carried out. When the federal government retains overwhelming control of land and decision-making, self-governance is delayed in practice even though statehood exists on paper. That tension is at the core of Alaska’s struggle.
Self-governance moves forward not through disorder, but when the constitutional intent of statehood is honored: land and authority transferred lawfully so Alaskans can govern themselves in fact, not just in name. Right!
But John, that would look bad on the world stage to the USA.
This is why alaskans cannot thrive, Weare stuck in an unending loop.no land or they release land so remote its impossible for most to reach. The legislators are fine with begging the fed and stealing the PFD
Federal land ownership is fully explained in Article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution. A careful reading is helpful to anyone studying this subject. In short Federal land control is rather limited, and its uses are narrowly and clearly defined.
I had the good fortune to personally meet quite a few of the pioneers who were involved in the statehood movement and the State Constitutional Convention. Mr. Martin’s succinct description of the intent of the Alaska Statehood act agrees with what I learned from them. There seems to be a couple of reasons Alaska hasn’t developed into the self-sustaining state they envisioned:
1. The Prudhoe Bay oil reservoir was much more prolific than anyone imagined at the time, so much more revenue was available to fund services at the state level than was expected, and
2. Congress embarked on a spending spree fueled by fiat currency and deficit spending that made it easier for us to depend on federal handouts than privately funded economic development.
This has driven us to become accustomed to engaging in political battles over access to money in the central treasury instead of producing something that we could exchange with on a voluntary basis with our neighbors.
We seem to be reaching the inevitable end of economies based on plundering from others. But the other resource opportunities our predecessors thought would underpin our state’s economy are still available and are in higher demand than they were when Alaska achieved statehood.
A bright future is ahead of us. All we have to do is start asking ourselves ‘what can I do to serve others?’ instead of ‘what can others do to serve me?’
There is lots of private land in the unincorporated areas of Alaska that under the Statehood pact with Congress were mandated to become incorporated and generate some income through property taxes which would ease the financial burden to the Federal government somewhat, but with the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in the 60’s and the subsequent royalties & tax revenue generated to the State, our legislators lost interest in honoring that commitment. Now we are living in a state where SOME residents pay Borough and municipal property taxes to pay for their schools and other public works and others – no matter how wealthy – rely on State revenues to finance those functions. It is way past time for our legislators to address this inequity!
Great commentary on Alaska state history in your last couple articles, Ed! Thank you!
Wayne, one must live it, to love it 😉 Liberty Ed
Alaska was sold a bill of goods in 1959 from the federal government . Just ask the American Indian .
Prudhoe Bay produced about five times the initial estimate and will continue to produce oil for another 100 years. All lies from the oil company’s that managed it and infiltrated the state agencys . Now several billion more barrels have been discovered in the last ten years and still have not been delivered to market .
No new roads built on the north slope in fifty years . Still trying to access through the ice roads . Govt needs to get off its lazy butt and build new roads on the north slope if for any reason other than to clean up an oil spill . The fact that no road ever built to the east to Pt Thomson is a crime . Yes a crime . Building these stupid ice roads are both ridiculous and expensive .
And no Conoco Phillips , you are not our local oil company !