Fact check: Which States were the first and last to ratify the 16th Amendment?

1. Summary of the results

The two provided analyses converge on a limited factual core: the Sixteenth Amendment reached ratification on February 3, 1913, but neither source identifies which states were the first or last to ratify. Both summaries describe procedural aspects of the Amendment’s adoption—its subject (federal income taxation) and its ultimate ratification date—without supplying an ordered list or timeline of state actions. This absence means that claims about specific “first” or “last” ratifying states cannot be substantiated from the supplied material alone. Readers should therefore treat any specific state-attribution as unsupported by these two sources ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Key contextual facts are missing from the analyses: a detailed chronology of state ratifications, the identity of the initial proponents or opponents in various state legislatures, and contemporaneous political dynamics that shaped the ratification sequence. Alternative primary-source perspectives—state legislative journals, contemporaneous newspapers, or National Archives records—typically provide the granular timeline needed to identify the first and last ratifying states, but those sources were not included. Also absent are explanations for regional patterns in ratification, the role of party politics, and any legal challenges or certification delays that can make “first” versus “effective” ratification ambiguous. Without those perspectives, the narrative omits factors that would materially change interpretations of sequence and significance ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Stating or implying specific states were the “first” or “last” to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment—based solely on the provided analyses—would risk propagating unsupported assertions. Parties with an interest in emphasizing regional credit or blame (state politicians, historians with local agendas, or partisan commentators) could use such unverified claims to advance narratives about constitutional legacy or local political virtue. The two supplied sources, by not listing ratification order, avoid this but also leave room for others to fill gaps with mistaken or self-serving accounts. Consumers should therefore demand primary chronological evidence before accepting claims about which states were first or last ^{[1] [2]}.