This post may contain affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
In 1959, America added two very different places to the union: Alaska’s frozen wilderness and Hawaii’s tropical islands. The Senate votes weren’t as close as you might expect—Alaska passed 64–20 and Hawaii 76–15—but the opposition patterns say a lot about 1950s politics.
Reddit user FlimsyTalkHarrison made detailed maps of these Senate votes using official congressional records. The maps show which senators voted yes or no, and the geographic patterns are pretty interesting.
Vote for the Admission of Alaska as a State (64-20)Vote for the admission of Hawaii as a State (76-15)
Life as a Territory Wasn’t Great
Both Alaska and Hawaii spent decades as U.S. territories, which meant their residents got the worst of both worlds. They paid federal taxes and served in the military, but couldn’t vote for president and only had non-voting representatives in Congress.
Alaska came to the U.S. in 1867 when we bought it from Russia for $7.2 million. People called it “Seward’s Folly” because it seemed like a waste of money. Alaska became an organized territory in 1912, but Alaskans still couldn’t fully participate in democracy.
Hawaii’s story is messier. American sugar planters overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani in 1893 with help from U.S. marines. The U.S. annexed Hawaii in 1898 and made it a territory in 1900. Like Alaska, Hawaii had all the responsibilities of being American with few of the benefits.
Why Statehood Became Urgent
By the 1940s and 1950s, both territories were pushing hard for statehood. World War II and the Cold War made Alaska strategically important—turns out having territory next to the Soviet Union was useful after all. Hawaii proved its value during WWII and became America’s key Pacific base.
But despite these strong arguments, senators had several concerns. Some thought Alaska would be too expensive, requiring constant federal aid to survive economically. Others worried that adding two new states meant adding four new senators, and both Alaska and Hawaii seemed likely to vote Democratic, which would change the balance in Congress. Some senators even questioned whether places so far from the mainland and so culturally different should really be states.
Hawaii faced an extra problem: racism. Southern senators openly opposed Hawaii because of its large Asian American and Native Hawaiian population. They knew Hawaii would likely elect progressive politicians who’d support civil rights, which could speed up desegregation in the South.
The Senate Vote Breakdown
These concerns played out clearly in the voting patterns. The opposition wasn’t random. Southern states consistently voted against both Alaska and Hawaii. Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia cast two “no” votes each for both territories.
Some states split their votes, with one senator voting yes and one voting no. For Alaska, this happened in Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Hawaii’s vote went smoother, with fewer split delegations. Only Florida, Louisiana, and Maryland couldn’t agree between their two senators. The cleaner vote for Hawaii showed that while racial concerns existed, the strategic importance of the Pacific territory was harder to deny.
The Final Decision
With the voting complete, Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959, after President Eisenhower signed the Alaska Statehood Act on July 7, 1958. Hawaii followed on August 21, 1959, after the Hawaii Admission Act was signed March 18, 1959.
These were the last two states added to the union, bringing us to the 50 states we have today. Both admissions marked a shift toward a more global America, with territory spanning from the Arctic to the tropics. The same arguments that shaped these debates continue today as other territories consider statehood.
What About Today?
The same arguments from 1959 keep coming up. Puerto Rico held another statehood referendum in November 2024, with about 57% voting yes. Washington D.C. keeps pushing for statehood too.
The questions haven’t changed much: Should political considerations influence statehood decisions? How important is geographic location? What about population size or economic impact?
