A NATION OF STATES—AND OF TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS

With the British Cession of 1783, according to the terms of the Treaty of Paris following the American Revolution, the United States formally acquired the eastern half of the Mississippi River Valley. Then, with the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, the US government—still under the Articles of Confederation—set a long-standing precedent on the process of how new lands and their inhabitants were to be incorporated into the Union. What obtained for extensive areas and tens of thousands of residents of the Northwest Territory likewise and later held for the Southwest Territory (1790–1796), the Territory of Mississippi (1798–1817), and the Territory of Alabama (1817–1819). The residents of the Near West and émigrés from the Eastern states would become the residents of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama, and the five states of the Old Northwest.

Indicatively, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention repeatedly mentioned “Western territory,” “Western lands,” “Western Country,” “Western states,” and the inevitability of Western settlement (Farrand Reference Farrand1937; Onuf Reference Onuf1987). Similarly, Thomas Jefferson, other delegates in Philadelphia that summer, and American policy makers throughout the nineteenth century spoke repeatedly of the expanding “American empire” (Sparrow Reference Sparrow2006, 23, 62–5, 218–19).

This geographic expansion continued with the Louisiana Purchase (1803), acquisitions of West Florida (1811) and East Florida (1819), Oregon Cession (1846), Mexican Cession (1848), purchase of Alaska (1867), and annexation of the US Caribbean and Pacific territories at the end of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century. Congress established a total of 71 territories with distinct boundaries and duration, ^{Footnote 1} and the United States increased from 16 states in 1800 to 23 states by 1820, 26 states by 1840, 33 states by 1860, 38 states by 1880, 45 states by 1900, 48 states by 1920, and 50 states by 1960. Furthermore, the period between the admission of a new state and when that same area and its inhabitants—or a significant portion of the area and its residents—initially came under US sovereignty averaged more than 40 years. For Chief Justice Marshall and other American policy makers, the US government’s plenary control over its territories provided a prolonged period of tutelage, which prepared residents for statehood and full political membership.

This is not what political scientists and their students learn about American political development. Madison (Federalist Papers No. 45 and No. 51), de Tocqueville (Reference de Tocqueville and Lawrence1969, 114–17, 167–70), Bryce (Reference Bryce1891, 412), and others (Elazar Reference Elazar1984; Ostrom Reference Ostrom1991; Riker Reference Riker1964; Robertson Reference Robertson2011) describe the United States as being composed exclusively of its member states and an overarching national government—with the exception of the federal district (i.e., Washington, DC). For Riker (Reference Riker1964, 5), “The essential institutions of federalism are, of course, a government of the federation and a set of governments of the member units, in which both kinds of governments rule over the same territory and people and each kind has the authority to make some decisions independently of the other.” Throughout his comparative study of federalism, Riker identified the United States in exclusively federalist terms.

Neither Riker nor these other scholars—nor, for that matter, the authors of introductory American government textbooks—address the “democratic deficit” experienced by the people who are (and were) subject to the authority of the federal government yet had (and have) limited representation in the House of Representatives and no representation in the US Senate and Executive Branch—and, therefore, in the Judiciary. The history and current reality of the US territories contravene the unquestioned assumption of the United States as a federal republic.

“INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN POLITICS,” FEDERALISM, AND GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION

As of mid-2016, almost all introductory American government textbooks omit any reference to the US territories, neglect to point out the extensive government land-holding within the states, and do not explain why the United States initially sought to acquire additional possessions and annex new territories—all topics that are at least as much political as they are historical.

There are exceptions. Bianco and Canon (Reference Bianco and Canon2015, 437) describe the US conquest of the present-day American Southwest and the Polk administration’s annexation of the Oregon Territory. They also note that Puerto Ricans are one of several groups constituting the pan-ethnic Latino population within the states, that US district courts exist in all of the territories and Washington, DC, and that Puerto Rican courts are a part of the US federal court system (Bianco and Canon Reference Bianco and Canon2015, 157, 519).

Lowi et al. (Reference Lowi, Ginsberg, Shepsle and Ansolabehere2015, 414, 531) describe Puerto Ricans’ strong affiliation with the Democratic Party. Morone and Kersh (Reference Morone and Kersh2016, 330–1) report that Puerto Rico was on the 2012 presidential primary and caucus schedule.

In a textbook that explicitly addresses race and ethnicity, McClain and Tauber (Reference McClain and Tauber2016, 145) provide the most extensive discussion. They describe the US acquisition of Puerto Rico after the Spanish–American War, Puerto Ricans becoming US citizens after the 1917 Jones Act and thereby able to relocate to the several states, Puerto Rico’s official status as a commonwealth, and Puerto Ricans falling under the jurisdiction of the US federal courts. They also point out that the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner in Washington cannot vote on the House floor, that Puerto Ricans have no representation in the US Senate, that they are not allowed to vote in federal elections, and that Puerto Rican statehood remains controversial and unresolved (McClain and Tauber Reference McClain and Tauber2016, 145).

None of the other dozen introductory American politics textbooks that I consulted mentions the territories, US geographic expansion, or federal lands that exist within the states and they do not discuss the role of the territories in the rise of the United States as a world power. Neither do these textbooks acknowledge that people were already living in the areas acquired by the United States as it expanded. As a result, the overwhelming majority of students of introductory American government do not learn anything about the territorial origins of more than 60% of the states, the multiple US Caribbean and Pacific territories (or even that the Philippines were a US possession from 1898 to 1946), and the challenges that federal lands pose to the notion of the United States as the geographical aggregate of its states. Few students discover that territorial residents do not experience full constitutional protection or learn why the United States originally acquired its territories.

So how can instructors include the territories in a more precise—if more complicated—understanding of US politics and government before updated textbooks are published? Consider the following suggestions:

1. (1) In discussions of the founding, instructors could explain the importance of the trans-Appalachian West, the British Proclamation of 1763 (i.e., prohibiting settlement by American colonists beyond the fall line), and the 1783 British Cession. They could include the significance of the quasi-constitutional Northwest Ordinance and emphasize its importance as a template for subsequent US geographic expansion, territorial organization, and admission of new states.

2. (2) In their explanation of federalism, instructors could discuss how the concept of dual sovereignty and the assumption that the United States constitutes a federation of states both fail to capture the history of American political development since the founding, as well as the present reality of the United States.

3. (3) When covering Congress, instructors could point out the oddity that the territorial delegates can sponsor bills and propose legislation, are assigned congressional office space and staff personnel, have franking privileges, and receive other member benefits but cannot vote on the House floor or participate in roll-call votes.

4. (4) Regarding the presidency, instructors could mention that territorial residents participate in presidential primaries and caucuses and have delegates at the two parties’ national conventions, yet ironically they are ineligible to vote in presidential general elections.

5. (5) When discussing the courts, instructors could mention that the territorial courts fall within the appellate-court system. They also could point out that the Constitution applies but incompletely to territorial residents—despite the fact that they are officially US citizens. They might also mention that US citizens in the territories are being discriminated against on the basis of geography rather than gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other criterion.

6. (6) In their analyses of political parties and group affiliations, instructors might discuss the fact that the four million Puerto Ricans living in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and other states currently outnumber those residing on the island. They also could point out that Puerto Ricans residing in the states identify more closely than other Latino subpopulations with the Democratic Party.

7. (7) In their reviews of US foreign policy, instructors might observe that the rise of the United States as a great power and subsequently as a superpower was made possible because of its geographical expansion. North America gave Americans the agricultural surplus and raw materials to support a fast-growing population and a resource-rich industrial base; the Caribbean and Pacific territories provided naval bases—and, later, air bases—needed to protect trade; shelter the mainland; and furnish forward positions for stationing military forces, monitoring potential adversaries, and projecting power.

None of these additions to an introductory American politics course requires more than a short explanation, and none would need more than a few paragraphs in future textbook editions. However, they would provide a fuller, more sophisticated, and more representational study of the American political system.