On June 30, 1958, the United States Senate cast a vote that would reshape the map of America.
After six days of debate, and by a tally of 64 in favor, 20 against, and 12 not voting, the Senate passed the Alaska Statehood Act (H.R. 7999), setting the 49th state on a path to officially join the Union, and sending the act to President Dwight D. Eisenhower for his signature.
This milestone moment was the culmination of years of effort by Alaskans to gain full representation in Congress and self-governance equal to that of the states.
The vote marked a turning point for Alaska and the nation as a whole, ushering in a new era of geographic, political, and economic expansion.
Alaska, purchased from Russia in 1867, had long been viewed by many in the Lower 48 as remote, rugged, and sparsely populated, better suited for military installations and natural resource extraction than full-fledged statehood.
Many Alaskans saw it differently. For years, territorial leaders and activists lobbied Washington, DC for equal footing. They pointed to Alaska’s contributions during World War II, its strategic military importance during the Cold War, and the growing economic potential in oil, fishing, and mining. Among the prominent proponents were Sen. Bob Bartlett, Gov.-Sen. Ernest Gruening, and Ted Stevens. Less supportive was territorial Gov. Benjamin Franklin Heintzleman (governor, 1953–1957), who had proposed a partition plan to divide Alaska, creating a state from Southeast, Southcentral, and Interior Alaska, but leaving Western and Arctic Alaska as a territory.
President Eisenhower was a proponent. But in the Senate, some members were not in favor. The 20 “nay” votes came primarily from Southern Democrats who were leery of Alaska’s strong labor union power and progressive streak, and three conservative Republicans who didn’t think Alaska could stand on its own two feet.
The following senators are identified as having voted “Nay” on the Alaska Statehood Act:
- James Eastland (D-MS)
- J. William Fulbright (D-AR)
- Sam Ervin (D-NC)
- Olin Johnston (D-SC)
- John Stennis (D-MS)
- Herman Talmadge (D-GA)
- George Smathers (D-FL)
- John Sparkman (D-AL)
- Richard Russell (D-GA)
- Allen Ellender (D-LA)
- Russell Long (D-LA)
- Spessard Holland (D-FL)
- John McClellan (D-AR)
- Willis Robertson (D-VA)
- Harry Byrd (D-VA)
- A. S. Mike Monroney (D-OK)
- Strom Thurmond (D-SC) – Notably vocal, citing concerns about Alaska’s noncontiguous status diluting the Union’s strength.
- Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) – Opposed Alaska statehood due to economic concerns and skepticism about Alaska’s readiness.
- John Bricker (R-OH) – Shared concerns about the precedent of admitting noncontiguous territories.
- William Jenner (R-IN) – Opposed on similar grounds, questioned Alaska’s economic viability.
The 20 senators reflect the opposition that was driven by regional political dynamics (Southern Democrats feared a shift in Senate balance) and conservative concerns about Alaska’s economic immaturity.
Following the Senate vote, the Alaska Statehood Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower on July 7, 1958. Alaskans later ratified the statehood proposal through a public vote, and on Jan. 3, 1959, Alaska officially became the 49th state of the United States.
Today, the June 30 Senate vote is remembered as a landmark moment in Alaska history, a legislative triumph that overcame resistance rooted in partisanship, regionalism, and outdated perceptions.
Can you remember where you were and what you were doing? I was on the south side of the mouth of the Naknek River helping my mother with her setnet.
Alaska… The only reason the United States is larger than China. Who knew?
That’s funny the Democrats didn’t want it back then but now they are trying to take it over
Congressional passage of the Alaska Statehood Act, and its subsequent approval by Alaskan voters, changed provisions of the previously adopted Alaska Constitution. Making it necessary to read both together.
For example: The Alaska Constitution incorporated the historic mineral laws that grew out of the California and western lands mineral discoveries of the 19th Century. Laws that granted mineral rights to individuals, not Kings nor States.
Granting mineral rights to an individual was a radical departure from European and most areas subject to kings, emperors, feudal lords or noble landowners who claimed ownership of minerals and the serfs who worked said noble’s land.
In the US, discovery is the precipitating element conveying possession of the right to extract a mineral to a free individual.
Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, Sect 11, excerpt: “Prior discovery, location, and filing, as prescribed by law, shall establish a prior right to these minerals and also a prior right to permits, leases, and transferable licenses for their extraction.”
Section 6(i) of the Statehood Act prohibits the granting of subsurface mineral rights to surface land owners. Sec. 6(i) also reverts any disposal of mineral rights to federal ownership. And it required a leasing system for such mineral development.
Statehood Act, Section 6(i) “All grants made or confirmed under this Act shall include mineral deposits. The grants of mineral lands to the State of Alaska under subsections (a) and (b) of this section are made upon the express condition that all sales, grants, deeds, or patents for any of the mineral lands so granted shall be subject to and contain a reservation to the State of all of the minerals in the lands so sold, granted, deeded, or patented, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same. Mineral deposits in such lands shall be subject to lease by the State as the State legislature may direct: Provided, That any lands or minerals hereafter disposed of contrary to the provisions of this section shall be forfeited to the United States by appropriate proceedings instituted by the Attorney General for that purpose in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.”
Moral of this story: You have to read the Alaska Constitution and the Statehood Act in concert with each other to fully understand Alaskan’s rights and responsibilities.
Discussions of the problems created by splitting land rights (Water, Grazing, Oil, Gas, Metallic Minerals, etc) amongst various owners are deeply embedded in western lore and political conflict. But that exceeds the remit for this note.
And not much really changed with statehood; Alaska is still effectively a colony, of corporate interests and the federal government.
Far too many Alaskans, especially recent Left Coast carpetbaggers, ignorantly and gullibly see government not as the problem that it is, but as the solution. Whidbey, cman, Sebastian, take a bow.
“…….Laws that granted mineral rights to individuals, not Kings nor States.
Granting mineral rights to an individual was a radical departure from European and most areas subject to kings, emperors, feudal lords or noble landowners who claimed ownership of minerals and the serfs who worked said noble’s land.
In the US, discovery is the precipitating element conveying possession of the right to extract a mineral to a free individual……..”
What does this mean? Are you saying that I can go out and discover mineral wealth on any PUBLIC land as I wish, and then I have the right to it, regardless what anybody else says? I can mine it, take it, pay nothing for it, and do with it as I wish? I don’t have to adhere to mining or prospecting laws? I can trespass if I wish? If I’m prospecting for minerals, I can just start digging as I so please?
I’m well familiar with the common lie that “Alaskans don’t have mineral rights on their own land”, but here you appear to write that the state or feds have no right or responsibility to manage public lands, surface or sub-surface.
Discivery grants rights to he who makes anf files a claim to the discovered minerals. It even grants a right to the permits and rules you will have to follow to extract said minerals. Someone else can’t simply acquire the permits for the minerals you have discovered.
But you have to follow the rules for mining. Given Alaska has the most stringent rules, arguably, on planet earth, it means you really must know those rules before expending resources on discovery or exploration.
Alaska reportedly has all but perhaps one of the 30 critical minerals the US needs to compete in the coming century. Graphite on the Seward Peninsula is one. A rare earth deposit in Southeast is another – and it has been seeking investment to advance for over 40 years.
Making a discovery, filing your claim, doesnt end the pricess. You then must apply for permits, complete environmental reviews, comply with air, water, and other limitations, file reporting documents, inform the public, and much more.
The key is that your effort to make a discovery is not, in the US, subverted to enriching a landlord, noble, or King.
Dies not apply to private land, nor lands closed to mineral entry, of course.
Heintzleman was right.
While it has been a mixed bag, absent Statehood, the Prudhoe Bay oil field may not have been discovered, and Alaska would have remained a federal backwater controlled by fishing and the military. And the tone for outside interests to oppose Alaska’s economic development has been set ever since. Alaska’s potential remains a threat to folks in the lower 48 that like things the way they are and make a lot of money from resource and capital flows. The more recent problem is that these same forces have learned that with a minimal cash investment, they can tilt the Alaska Legislature itself against resource development. In the medium term, they may prevail. Long term? Who knows. I will not be around to see it.
JMARK,
On July 17, 1973 the U.S. Senate passed the Gravel amendment by a tally of 50- 49 ( Vice President Agnew casts decided ballot) allowing Constrution of TAPS to move forward.
Imagine if that vote had swung the other way…
Why hasn’t the State of Alaska erected a monument in Agnew’s honor?
It was a tragic mistake.
Too bad that the Alaska state constitution is a semi-communistic document.
The severing of mineral rights from private property is just one egregious example. How such a proposal was EVER made, much less accepted, is beyond my understanding, and beneath my contempt.
Correction: In my discussion on this topic I attempt to explain that the Alaska Constitution does not split the subsurface from the surface estate. Section 6(i) of the Statehood Act does.
Given that the Statehood Act was enacted after the Constitution, and was subsequently approved by Alaskan voters it overrides Article 8 mineral provisions of the Constitution.
Remember: thus follows the 1920’s Oil and Gas leasing act by Congress. Which split the subsurface estate for hydrocarbon discoveries.
Blame Congress, not the Alaska Constitutional drafting committee.