What if the Philippines had gotten US statehood?

I think this is an interesting question because it had proponents both in the US and the Philippines. One can safely assume I think that if the Philippines had gotten statehood it would have been divided into 4 or 5 states. I think this would also lead to some interesting migration patterns, the Philippines would probably be much more diverse than it is now. What do you all think? Is such an idea feasible? How would WW2, the Cold War, and modern day America be different? Not only that, but would this mean that perhaps Lucas Miller's idea to rename the USA to the United States of Earth would be taken more seriously?
 
I think this is an interesting question because it had proponents both in the US and the Philippines. One can safely assume I think that if the Philippines had gotten statehood it would have been divided into 4 or 5 states. I think this would also lead to some interesting migration patterns, the Philippines would probably be much more diverse than it is now. What do you all think? Is such an idea feasible? How would WW2, the Cold War, and modern day America be different? Not only that, but would this mean that perhaps Lucas Miller's idea to rename the USA to the United States of Earth would be taken more seriously?
That is after 1900..
 
That is after 1900..

It's a borderline case. However, for anything such as this to occur, the POD would have to be far beyond the Spanish-American War to create that change.

I think this is an interesting question because it had proponents both in the US and the Philippines. One can safely assume I think that if the Philippines had gotten statehood it would have been divided into 4 or 5 states. I think this would also lead to some interesting migration patterns, the Philippines would probably be much more diverse than it is now. What do you all think? Is such an idea feasible? How would WW2, the Cold War, and modern day America be different? Not only that, but would this mean that perhaps Lucas Miller's idea to rename the USA to the United States of Earth would be taken more seriously?

Now, my determination for what would be necessary for any American foreign adventures is a healthier result in the Civil War. The US cannot take the human costs and collateral damage and still be willing to act overseas. Furthermore, there is the issue that the Philippines are not primary to defense of the metropole, of which Hawai'i could easily be shown to be (the Hawai'ian islands are the closest islands to the west coast of any large size, and have a low population). In comparison, the Philippines have a large native population that are on the periphery of American interests.

Frankly, the US must be more invested in the Pacific to even consider annexing the Philippines; there's no reason for the US to go out of their way to integrate such a large and foreign population. Remember, the point of interest the Philippines have is Subic Bay and the harbor there.

There was some interest of acutually integrating with the American metropole, but at the same time, the Philippines just wanted the same thing as they wanted with Spain. They wanted to be considered of the same class of citizens as the homeland. It was either that, or they wanted independence, and the decision will have to be made soon after the annexation of the Philippines.

Something that might help is that the US did not originally plan to take all of the Philippines. Only Subic Bay was desired, so only Luzon was initially sought. So, if the US takes only Luzon, then they might have a chance to retain it. (OTL, Luzon had a population of 2.580 million in 1887, and 6.686 in 1932. That is 51% and 49% of the total population of the time. Take the average of the percentage, and it is safe to assume that roughly half of the population is located on Luzon in the time frame listed. So, in 1900, the estimated population of Luzon is 3.708 million out of a total of 7.409 million.) This population is quite a lot higher than Puerto Rico, but it is much more manageable and concentrated in Manila and nearby areas.

So, here is my advice if you want to have the US actually make the Philippines part of a state is as thus: Have the US far more invested of the Pacific, with them desiring a second Hawai'i of sorts in the west to guard an American Lake in the Pacific. This requires that they view Oceania in general as part of the Western hemisphere, and a more adversarial look at Great Britain helps. The Civil war ends earlier, the Alabama claims aren't resolved as well in the US's views and the reconciliation takes longer to start. The US begins looking overseas much earlier after the war, and starts furthering its claims in the Pacific (Guano Island claims et al). Perhaps the Colony of Ellena/Kingdom of Ambong and Maroodoo succeeds and acts as a coaling station for the US, resulting in US desires for a port that is US territory instead of belonging to an American Rajah. Regardless, the US must be more aggressive and assertive in the Pacific. The Line Islands would have to be successfully claimed in total; the US might move into the Marshall Islands unofficially. Perhaps a bit of a kerfuffle over the Washington/Marquisas islands as well. US goes all in on Samoa earlier. Then, once the Spanish-American war occurs (not the same one, but one is likely inevitable), the US eventually goes in and, instead of Guam and the Philippines, they take the rest of the Carolina and the Mariana islands plus Luzon. That way, you have Luzon be the western citadel opposite Hawai'i and central to US Pacific ambitions. This gives the US a reason to go out of their way to keep Luzon, even if it involves giving up concessions to the region and put them on the path to independence.

It also helps for the US to move in before the First Philippine Republic is proclaimed. The remainder of the Philippines would likely be sold to Germany by Spain after said war (I think Germany will form, even with this PoD).

Also, a more adventurous US would be somewhat more agreeable to the annexation of foreign subjects, especially if the idea is to actively deny another power control of a region deemed vital to the US. So, in this case, you have a US agreement to integrate Luzon, at the least, as opposed to the OTL deal to establish a Philippine republic after a certain amount of time.

At the same time, there would be an incredible amount of pushback, both because it is rather blatantly imperialistic, of which the US was opposed to overseas, historically, and due to the racial and religious makeup of the islands. It's one thing to support a rebellious population of Anglo settlers against a Spanish-speaking Catholic government, but to do the same to liberate such distant, populous, foreign region would be difficult for the US to swallow. That's part of why having this occur before the First Republic is important (it reduces the image of oppression), while having a successful Ambong in addition to Sarawak would help as well: if the two adventurer states carved out of the Bornean jungle can successfully introduce civilized behavior and the English tongue to those remote islands, then assuredly the US would be just as capable of doing so. (Yellow journalism comes into play here, as the successes would be hyped beyond what actually occurred).

That gives a rough outline for what I believe would be necessary just for the US to have a shot of integrating part of the Philippines. At best, the remainder of the islands might come if a Great War variant ever happens and the US moves in, although the Sultan of Sulu might be restored in the South (the US did have relatively good relations prior to the annexation, and they may not want the headache involved with ruling those areas). As for what it would involve, relative to foreign policy? It would make the US a lot more sensitive to Asian concerns. A Great War probably would occur in some point (even if it is just a general European war that spills over worldwide), but it is quite a major question as to whose side the US would take. The US moving so deeply into Asia and taking such a large chunk of Oceania would both bottle up the Japanese and agitate US/UK relations, so the US might find itself more at odds with the UK in this timeline. The reconciliation isn't impossible to halt at this point, although it is still difficult due to the integrated economies of the US and the UK and the shared language and culture, combined with a determination to demilitarize the large borders involved. So, by that point, it is anyone's game.

The Philippines, though, would likely end up far more developed than OTL, being the location of major naval bases. The population would likely be quite a bit lower, though, as the islands develop, though they'd still become quite populous and one of the largest states in the country. It's doubtful that the US would change its name, though; the concept of Oceania as a continent may not develop, or the continental line might be drawn to only include the large islands from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomons, and east. And, as there is no other country that contains the word America in their official name, then America would likely remain the demonym. This may last longer in the case of a divided Philippines, with Asian Filipino and American Filipino being the obvious difference.

tl;dr, the US in OTL would not have ever let the Philippines join as states OTL without changes far back in history that would make the US more amenable to Catholic, Spanish-speaking Asians join the country as a sovereign state. The changes required would likely result in a 20th century that looks far different, and it would not be one you'd recognize.
 
It's hard to imagine the US granting statehood to a Non-White territory.

But assuming that it did, and this American Phillipines matched the current one, it would rival California for the largest state in the US, and would swing a deciding amount of weight in the House of Representatives.
 
It took sixty years for the US to grant statehood to Hawaii, which could have only a minor effect on US politics--and the chief motivation (sometimes though not always stated openly) was racial. The Philippines had 7,409,000 people in 1900, the US proper 75,994,575. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900 The US was not going to allow Filipinos to elect almost one-tenth of the US House of Representatives (more than the then most populous state, New York)!

Even in the Philippines, support for the idea was limited and short-lived: " In December 1900, de Tavera and Legarda established the Federalista Party, advocating statehood for the islands. In the following year they were appointed the first Filipino members of the Philippine Commission of the legislature. In such an advantageous position, they were able to bring influence to bear to achieve the appointment of Federalistas to provincial governorships, the Supreme Court, and top positions in the civil service. Although the party boasted a membership of 200,000 by May 1901, its proposal to make the islands a state of the United States had limited appeal, both in the islands and in the United States, and the party was widely regarded as being opportunistic. In 1905 the party revised its program over the objections of its leaders, calling for "ultimate independence" and changing its name to the National Progressive Party (Partido Nacional Progresista)..." http://countrystudies.us/philippines/17.htm But it really would be irrelevant if the idea had more appeal in the Philippines, since it was never going to be enacted by the US Congress.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to imagine the US granting statehood to a Non-White territory.

But assuming that it did, and this American Phillipines matched the current one, it would rival California for the largest state in the US, and would swing a deciding amount of weight in the House of Representatives.

Well, the US nearly did annex Santo Domingo (likely as a territory) to create a black-majority territory/state. However, the issue was passed over, and it was never raised again. This was a central issue to the debate, and it is a requisite component for any expansion of the US to regions that cannot be easily assimilatable: that region must become a central component of US politics, either internal or external.

It took sixty years for the US to grant statehood to Hawaii, which could have only a minor effect on US politics--and the chief motivation (sometimes though not always stated openly) was racial. The Philippines had 7,409,000 people in 1900, the US proper 75,994,575. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900 The US was not going to allow Filipiinos to elect almost one-tenth of the US House of Representatives (more than the then most populous state, New York)!

Even in the Philippines, support for the idea was limited and short-lived: " In December 1900, de Tavera and Legarda established the Federalista Party, advocating statehood for the islands. In the following year they were appointed the first Filipino members of the Philippine Commission of the legislature. In such an advantageous position, they were able to bring influence to bear to achieve the appointment of Federalistas to provincial governorships, the Supreme Court, and top positions in the civil service. Although the party boasted a membership of 200,000 by May 1901, its proposal to make the islands a state of the United States had limited appeal, both in the islands and in the United States, and the party was widely regarded as being opportunistic. In 1905 the party revised its program over the objections of its leaders, calling for "ultimate independence" and changing its name to the National Progressive Party (Partido Nacional Progresista)..." http://countrystudies.us/philippines/17.htm But it really would be irrelevant if the idea had more appeal in the Philippines, since it was never going to be enacted by the US Congress.

Very good point here; the Philippines were also not requisite for the defense of US interests in total; the only thing desired was Subic Bay. In addition, the Philippines were a bonus prize during the war, and were not the actual focus of the war. There was never any immediate consideration to annex the majority for the entire island chain permanently.

That's why I would say that the US must have the Philippines become chief and central to US policy and ambitions, to the point that they would take the lesser of two evils and annex them with intentions of making a state. Also, it would help to annex only Luzon, and not the rest of the Philippines, which was the original focus and would minimize some of the issues involved with population (though not all).

In 1900, Luzon alone would have been the 5th largest territory, which is still rather high. You need a lot, a lot of mitigating factors to make the idea tenable, but it could be achievable, if the US determines that it is important enough.
 
@Luminous, how much did the people of the Philippines feel they were a single country at the time? Would there have been much local opposition to dividing Luzon from the other islands?
 
@Luminous, how much did the people of the Philippines feel they were a single country at the time? Would there have been much local opposition to dividing Luzon from the other islands?


I don't think there would be any strong opposition, the Visayans will later forget that they were a single colony with the north since earlier before the Spanish colonization the north was under Majapahit control..
 
@Luminous, how much did the people of the Philippines feel they were a single country at the time? Would there have been much local opposition to dividing Luzon from the other islands?

That I can't answer you, although it was Spanish Colonization that united the islands in the first place; before then, it was the scattered kingdoms trying to resist incursions from the Muslim south, and Borneo.

However, Luzon is remote from the majority of the problems; Visayas and the Christian parts of Maguindanao would desire protection from the pirate incursions from the Moros and the Sultanate of Sulu. It was the US negotiators that OTL resulted in the Sultan giving up the remainder of his temporal power. I think that is why that the north was so populous, as it was the most insulated portion from the pirate raids (combined with having the best harbor and being the center of Spanish power, it was best defended from raids).

Philippines is like India in the regard that she has lots of local subnational languages, even if the only official ones are English and Tagalog (the subnational language of Manila). That shows the importance of Manila relative to the rest of the country, but Tagalog was established as the national language on the second to last day in 1937. Before that time, either Spanish or English was used as the common trade language, unifying the islands with the other language.

So, at this point, it is likely that the islands would continue on the same as before, with the US replacing English in the North. However, Spain might end up selling the south as they did Micronesia IOTL, which means another colonial owner might take possession. The UK, France, and Germany are the first contenders I'd think of, especially if the US had shut them out of the Marshall islands/Samoa by moving in earlier.
 
That I can't answer you, although it was Spanish Colonization that united the islands in the first place; before then, it was the scattered kingdoms trying to resist incursions from the Muslim south, and Borneo.

However, Luzon is remote from the majority of the problems; Visayas and the Christian parts of Maguindanao would desire protection from the pirate incursions from the Moros and the Sultanate of Sulu. It was the US negotiators that OTL resulted in the Sultan giving up the remainder of his temporal power. I think that is why that the north was so populous, as it was the most insulated portion from the pirate raids (combined with having the best harbor and being the center of Spanish power, it was best defended from raids).

Philippines is like India in the regard that she has lots of local subnational languages, even if the only official ones are English and Tagalog (the subnational language of Manila). That shows the importance of Manila relative to the rest of the country, but Tagalog was established as the national language on the second to last day in 1937. Before that time, either Spanish or English was used as the common trade language, unifying the islands with the other language.

So, at this point, it is likely that the islands would continue on the same as before, with the US replacing English in the North. However, Spain might end up selling the south as they did Micronesia IOTL, which means another colonial owner might take possession. The UK, France, and Germany are the first contenders I'd think of, especially if the US had shut them out of the Marshall islands/Samoa by moving in earlier.


The population of Visayas is also big as a part of the population of Visayas was resettled in Manila and in Christian Mindanao..

The Visayans were victimized by the Pirate raids because they refused to convert to Islam..
 
Last edited:
Its my understanding that the occupation of the islands was very unpopular in the US, and helped to galvanize much of the isolationist/anti-imperialist attitudes of the time. If there's any reason at all for the territory to be strongly opposed to the US, I don't see why anything different would happen on the home front.
 
Its my understanding that the occupation of the islands was very unpopular in the US, and helped to galvanize much of the isolationist/anti-imperialist attitudes of the time. If there's any reason at all for the territory to be strongly opposed to the US, I don't see why anything different would happen on the home front.

That is part of the problem, isn't it? The Filipinos would have to be on board with the idea or, at least, more amenable to even trying to go along with the idea of joining the US.

That's part of the reason that I did point out that it would likely have to occur before the founding of the first republic. The US cannot realistically offer the promise of statehood to a republic that it had just put down in rebellion. A lot of the unpopularity from the occupation would have to come from the US having to fight a war to subdue them in the first place, likely. Avoid that war by moving in before the First Repubic is founded, and before the largest in that round of unrest starts, and you're not fighting an organized resistance dedicated to independence. Instead, the US would rather fight disparate pockets, instead.

Timing is everything in making a long-shot like this come about. And, just the same as the US must find Luzon more valuable than it did OTL, the Filipinos must find joining the US more to their liking. Remove the war, to some extent, and have reforms be achieved, along with possible political representation with a mainland (rather than colonial rule), and the natives may be willing to give it a shot.

I'm thinking of it like Nevada, which was granted statehood very early and with as low a population as possible in order to secure the silver mines, as they were a strategic resource. Make Luzon valuable enough that the US would like to grant it statehood, and then you might be able to make a case for the natives wanting to accept.
 
That is part of the problem, isn't it? The Filipinos would have to be on board with the idea or, at least, more amenable to even trying to go along with the idea of joining the US.

That's part of the reason that I did point out that it would likely have to occur before the founding of the first republic. The US cannot realistically offer the promise of statehood to a republic that it had just put down in rebellion. A lot of the unpopularity from the occupation would have to come from the US having to fight a war to subdue them in the first place, likely. Avoid that war by moving in before the First Repubic is founded, and before the largest in that round of unrest starts, and you're not fighting an organized resistance dedicated to independence. Instead, the US would rather fight disparate pockets, instead.

Timing is everything in making a long-shot like this come about. And, just the same as the US must find Luzon more valuable than it did OTL, the Filipinos must find joining the US more to their liking. Remove the war, to some extent, and have reforms be achieved, along with possible political representation with a mainland (rather than colonial rule), and the natives may be willing to give it a shot.

I'm thinking of it like Nevada, which was granted statehood very early and with as low a population as possible in order to secure the silver mines, as they were a strategic resource. Make Luzon valuable enough that the US would like to grant it statehood, and then you might be able to make a case for the natives wanting to accept.
I think making Pro-Statehood party the mainstream party in the congress would be a start.
 
Top