No, not the British type. What would Hawaii look like if it didn't become a State in 1959. Would it be in the same situation as Puerto Rico today? Would the Hawaiians have a substancial independence movement? How would their politics look? Or would a later admission into the Union happen at the same time as PR? And could it have Samoa and some of the other Pacific Islands (including the protectorates/free associations) as a way of wiping the board of territories?
Commonwealth of Hawaii?
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
The Territory of Hawaii was an organized incorporated territory. It had a large and vocal statehood movement. Commonwealth status was never an option.
Puerto Rico was an organized, unincorporated territory with a smaller and less vocal statehood movement. Commonwealth status was a compromise to give PR local self government without statehood or independence.
Puerto Rico was an organized, unincorporated territory with a smaller and less vocal statehood movement. Commonwealth status was a compromise to give PR local self government without statehood or independence.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Territory status is usually the step before statehood. The ballot regarding statehood in Hawaii apparently only had two options: statehood or continued territory status. It was a deal with the devil, but statehood has far more benefits than remaining a territory.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
I think the common consensus is that after Pearl Harbor its ASB, before its implausible.
So prevent that and its a start...
So prevent that and its a start...
There could never have been another option. As I stated above Hawaii was an organized, incorporated territory. It was never a possession, it was always part of the national territory of the United States, indistinguishable from any territory created by The Congress since the founding. It's residents had citizenship due to the Fourteenth Amendment. The whole of the Constitution has always applied to it. Statehood was never not going to happen. It was simply a question of when.
Puerto Rico has been classed, due to the Insular Cases, as a possession* owned by the United States, but not part of the US national territory. Puerto Ricans had citizenship by Act of Congress only in 1917. The Constitution has been applied to it in fits and starts. At the time the Commonwealth was created it was legally distinct from the United States.
The situations are very different.
*A recent court case has argued that Puerto Rico has now been effectively incorporated into the US. Incorporated not by a single act, but instead by the cumulative effect of multiple Acts of Congress treating it as such over the last 60 years.
David S Poepoe
Banned
It was part of the national territory following annexation. One shouldn't use 'always' when talking about a foreign nation forcibly overthrown and annexed by the United States.
I doubt that the 'whole of the Constitution' applied during the years of Martial Law following Pearl Harbor.
One could make the argument that Martial Law is sanctioned by the Constitution through Article 1, Section 9 which permits the suspension of habeas corpus. Furthermore, there is plenty of precedent for the imposition of martial law in the United States. Although, the Army's conduct in Hawaii was slammed in federal court after the war with a judge saying it "set up a military dictatorship".
In short, Legion is correct that, as an organized, incorporated territory Hawaii was on the path to statehood. My understanding is that no state was admitted without going through a stage as an organized, incorporated territory however short. So going off of that the only* way I can see to make Hawaii a Commonwealth instead of a State is for annexation to happen differently. As a thought on how it could happen how about Queen Liliuokalani swallows her pride and is willing to grant amnesty to the participants in her overthrow. She is restored by the Cleveland administration but with an increased US military presence in the Islands and American domination of the kingdom. From this point Hawaii becomes a de facto protectorate of the United States with the Queen enthroned but power firmly in the hands of the American and European business men. This isn't a stable shape of things and I see Hawaii being something of an American Samoa writ large. So Navy rule, possibly the forced abdication of the monarchy, lack of development, etc.
*okay there's always the option of Hawaii calling itself a Commonwealth instead of a State as a few states do. But while that would result in a Commonwealth of Hawaii it doesn't fulfill the OP now does it...
My discussion of the prospects for statehood only applies after the annexation.
As I recall, the implementation of Martial Law in Hawaii was ruled unconstitutional after an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the decision came in after Martial Law was no longer in effect anyway.
I think you are being overally legalistic. Hawaii was an independent nation recognized by the US and the rest of the world that was overthrown by a cadre of American business interests and then annexed by an expansionist USA. I have no doubt this did not represent the wishes of the majority of native Hawaiians. Of course by 1959 it probably made sense that independence was not on the table (both from a US defense perspective and for a majority of the residents in Hawaii who moved there in the 20th century) but to say that it was "always a part of" US national territory is both wrong and misleading.
While I oppose the idea, if there is any part of the US that has or had a legitimate right to secede from the United States it is Hawaii, not that conglomeration of southern states that all willingly and eagerly joined the USA we know as the Confederacy.