Monarchic US states?

WI the US constitution did not "guarantee to each state a republican form of governance"? Instead, either there is no mention of the form of government of the states, or simply a guarantee that the government of a state should be representative- still allowing constitutional monarchies. Could we see any monarchies joining the Union? Settlers setting up a kingdom? Native chiefdoms? Imperial Mexico?
 
It doesn't really answer your question, but in fact nobody actually knows what the legal interpretation of that clause is. There has never been a court case where someone has tried to invoke that clause, so no court has ever interpreted it. So I am not really sure what difference it would make if that clause were not in the constitution.

KEVP
 
It doesn't really answer your question, but in fact nobody actually knows what the legal interpretation of that clause is. There has never been a court case where someone has tried to invoke that clause, so no court has ever interpreted it. So I am not really sure what difference it would make if that clause were not in the constitution.

KEVP

That clause was central to Luther v. Borden, which was argued before the SCOTUS in 1849. The Supreme Court found that it was up to the President and Congress to enforce the clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court.
 
WI the US constitution did not "guarantee to each state a republican form of governance"? Instead, either there is no mention of the form of government of the states, or simply a guarantee that the government of a state should be representative- still allowing constitutional monarchies. Could we see any monarchies joining the Union? Settlers setting up a kingdom? Native chiefdoms? Imperial Mexico?

Most obvious test case for this would be Hawaii I would have thought?
 
There was an annexationist movement in Hawaii in the 1850s to the United States that ended when King Kamehameha III died and IV came on the throne. I have no idea if it was seriously considered or not. If he lived, and the movement somehow went through through, this would have been an issue that would have needed to be solved.

However, in the 1850s, the U.S. was too busy bickering over slavery and if Hawaii joined, it would be a slave state, so perhaps it would be too ASB for it to join at this time anyways...
 

Baskilisk

Banned
can you explain this?
Hawaii had a dense population of plantations for sugar and coffee and other tropical goods, so it makes sense that slaves should exploit it there. the US and Britain were already exploiting Hawaiians and Japanese for cultivation. Eventually you'd probably end up with something along the lines of Cuba; overloaded with slaves to the point that the sheer influence of their volume would bring about slavery's end there. The only reason this didn't happen in South Carolina is that they weren't isolated enough.
 
Hawaii had a dense population of plantations for sugar and coffee and other tropical goods, so it makes sense that slaves should exploit it there. the US and Britain were already exploiting Hawaiians and Japanese for cultivation. Eventually you'd probably end up with something along the lines of Cuba; overloaded with slaves to the point that the sheer influence of their volume would bring about slavery's end there. The only reason this didn't happen in South Carolina is that they weren't isolated enough.

you forgot they also exploited the Chinese, Koreans, Phillipinos, and the rest, but i get your point.

and this one makes more sense than the "it's under the....yare yare daze".
 

Baskilisk

Banned
you forgot they also exploited the Chinese, Koreans, Phillipinos, and the rest, but i get your point.

and this one makes more sense than the "it's under the....yare yare daze".
yeah, i was tempted to say 'other Asian peoples', but at the time there were very few there, most didnt come until later.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
It's under the 36° 30' line, isn't it? The southern states would see it as perfect slave territory.
and this one makes more sense than the "it's under the....yare yare daze".
Well, in this time anything that fertile for plantations wasn't going to be passed up by Congress as a free state. Think of the profits! And all the trade into the new Pacific harbors!
 
Well, in this time anything that fertile for plantations wasn't going to be passed up by Congress as a free state. Think of the profits! And all the trade into the new Pacific harbors!

true.....but i doubt they'ld side with the Confederacy in the result of the civil war.
 
Top