Some States May Be More Equal Than Others?

I learned something yesterday that stunned me: the Constitutional Convention voted to give Congress the power to admit new states on different terms than those to be enjoyed by the original states.

On August 29, 1787, the Constitutional Convention addressed Article XVII, concerning the admission of new states, as presented by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787:

New States lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the United States may be admitted, by the Legislature, into this Government; but to such admission the consent of two thirds of the members present in each House shall be necessary. If a new State shall arise within the limits of any of the present States, the consent of the Legislatures of such States shall be also necessary to its admission. If the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States. But the Legislature may make conditions with the new States, concerning the public debt which shall be then subsisting.

During the August 29 debate, Gouverneur Morris, representing Pennsylvania, specifically proposed to delete the language requiring the admission of “new States” “on the same terms with the original states”:

Art. XVII being taken up, Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out the two last sentences, to wit "If the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States. But the Legislature may make conditions with the new States, concerning the public debt, which shall be then subsisting." – He did not wish to bind down the Legislature [i.e., Congress] to admit Western States on the terms here stated.

In the ensuing debate, the Convention approved Morris’s motion and deleted the language. Moreover, it is pretty clear that Convention did so because the participants wanted the federal government to retain the option to admit new states on unequal terms:

Mr. [James] MADISON [of Virginia] opposed the motion, insisting that the Western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with other States.

Col. [George] MASON [of Virginia]. If it were possible by just means to prevent emigrations to the Western Country, it might be good policy. But go the people will as they find it for their interest, and the best policy is to treat them with that equality which will make them friends not enemies.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, did not mean to discourage the growth of the Western Country. He knew that to be impossible. He did not wish however to throw the power into their hands.

Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN [of Connecticut], was agst. the motion, & for fixing an equality of privileges by the Constitution.

Mr. [John] LANGDON [of New Hampshire] was in favor of the Motion, he did not know but circumstances might arise which would render it inconvenient to admit new States on terms of equality.

Mr. [Hugh] WILLIAMSON [of North Carolina] was for leaving the Legislature free. The existing small States enjoy an equality now, and for that reason are admitted to it in the Senate. This reason is not applicable to new Western States.

On Mr. Govr. Morris's motion for striking out.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

After a little more tinkering, the delegates arrived at the final version of the first sentence of Article IV, Section 3:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.