History feels permanent, and after the fact, it is. But conditions are fluid in real time. Idaho wasn’t destined to be the state it has become; it became that way because people made it so, sometimes for unexpected reasons.
With that in mind, let’s travel back to the 1880s, when there was a territory but not yet a state named Idaho, and look at it from a different and wider angle.
The usual in-state history - accurate as far as it goes - notes the creation of Oregon Territory in 1846, then the splitoff of Washington Territory (including what is now that state and Idaho) in 1859, then the divide between Washington and Idaho territories in 1863. From there, Idaho waited about 27 years for statehood, with a few points when it might or might not have included the panhandle or some of its eventual southern territory. Congress approved Idaho statehood, and President Benjamin Harrison signed the relevant bill, in 1890.
This story, common in Idaho histories and presumably still in classrooms, is not wrong. But it lacks context. For that, a column last week by the historian Heather Cox Richardson fills in more of the picture.
Remember first that the question of admitting states has been, almost from the beginning (and still is today) a matter of bitter politics and partisan advantage. The great pre-Civil War compromises hinged largely on balancing the admission of “free” and “slave” states, which had deep political implications.
After the war, Richardson points out, “Republicans and Democrats fought for years over admitting new western states, with members of each party blocking the admission of states thought to favor the other. Republicans counted on Dakota and Washington Territories, while the Democrats felt pretty confident about Montana and New Mexico Territories.” Because the two parties were closely balanced in strength in the 1880s, compromise was in order if new states were to be admitted.
Except that in 1888 Republicans narrowly won not only the presidency (that was when Harrison won his one term) but both houses of Congress
So, Richardson wrote, “Democrats had to cut a deal quickly or the Republicans would simply admit their own states and no others. The plan they ended up with cut Democratic New Mexico out of statehood but admitted Montana, split the Republican Territory of Dakota into two new Republican states, and admitted Republican-leaning Washington.” All four became states in November 1889.
Idaho advocates, like congressional delegate Fred T. Dubois, had been pressing for Idaho statehood throughout the 1880s, to little avail. The larger partisan picture helps explain why.
It also defines what happened next.
Once in power in Washington, the Republicans after 1888 quickly found themselves dissatisfied with the deal they had just cut. After the close 1888 election, Republicans wanted more of their backers voting for congressional seats in the 1890 mid-terms, and some electoral college advantage for the next go-round, as they feared losing the presidency in 1892 (which did happen).
With that in mind, Richardson wrote, “Republicans turned again to the idea of protecting their majority by adding more states. They looked toward Wyoming and Idaho. Since Wyoming had boasted a non-Indigenous population of fewer than 21,000 people in 1880 and the Northwest Ordinance had established 60,000 as the necessary population for admission to statehood, it was a stretch to argue that it was ready, but the Republicans were adamant that it should join the Union. They also wanted to add Idaho, which had a population of fewer than 33,000 in 1880. They were in such a hurry to admit Idaho that they bypassed the usual procedures of state admission, permitting the territorial governor to call for volunteers to write a state constitution, which voters approved only months later.”
Both were admitted in July 1890. (Republicans lost the House, though not the Senate, after the 1890 election anyway.)
Just another lesson in how hyper-partisanship is not new. If it’s a part of Idaho today, you’d also have to say it's much of the reason the state of Idaho exists.
It really comes down to us. Not our elected representatives, not our governor or our congressmen. Just how do we want our government to work?
The name of Dan Gandy’s nonprofit in Pocatello tells everything about what’s in his heart. And if you have admiration for veterans and first responders, you’ll love what he’s doing.
Idaho elected leaders bought into the national tax scheme devised by the MAGA crowd in Washington, DC, to the severe detriment of programs critical to Idaho. It’s as if the Governor and Legislature are unaware that the economic health of the Gem State is highly reliant on proper management of its natural resources or that they must provide for the essential needs of all Idahoans. We don’t fit into the national cookie cutter of the Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill (BBBB), which will increase the Nation’s national debt to an unsustainable $40 trillion. Idaho can’t deficit finance like the federal government and our so-called leaders refuse to raise sufficient revenue to finance important programs.
The Alex Pretti scenario ought to be under serious consideration by the Oregon Legislature. Time is running out.
A couple of years ago, following extensive testing, I was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment - MCI. A low form of dementia.