WI: Congress Approves Annexation of the Dominican Republic

[Metro]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson View Post
(and why are Spanish colonies whiter than British or French ones? Hmm...)

I'm curious about this myself.

It seems more Spaniards migrated to the Caribbean islands then French or English.

Canary Islanders appear to have participated in the settlement of the Caribbean from the earliest phases of the colonial period. The greatest impact stems from the waves of immigration that began in the 18th century and continued until the 1960s. The principal motivation for Canary settlement in the New World has generally been economic hardship at home but, in the 19th century, immigration was actively encouraged by the Spanish government as part of its attempt to stem the tide of nationalism in the colonies. Loyalist immigration of this type focused on Cuba and Puerto Rico, the two territories that remained under Spanish control for longest.

The demographic impact of the Canary Islanders was significant in the Caribbean. As early as 1714, for example, the governor of Caracas observed that half the white population of the city was composed of Canary Islanders. In Cuba, to take another example, the concentration of Canary Islanders in the 19th century was such that the isleño became a well-known figure in the literature of the time. As a consequence of this heritage, the Spanish spoken in many areas of the Caribbean exhibits undeniable similarities to Canary Island Spanish.

In Puerto Rico:

[SIZE=+2]European Immigration: [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Non-Hispanic:[/SIZE]
By 1850, Spain had lost all of its territories in the Americas, except for Cuba and Puerto Rico. Wanting to populate the islands with white, Catholics, it passed the Spanish Royal Decree of Graces (Real Cédula de Gracias) which gave land and full citizenship to any non-Hispanic European who wished to migrate to the crown’s last possessions.
At the same time, King Louis-Phillipe of France was overthrown, and a Republic was established, creating great political turmoil in the country, including its century-old possession in the Mediterranean, Corsica. The sense of hopelessness was commonly felt throughout this island. Thousands of Corsicans, looking for a better life, crossed the Atlantic and settled in the Southern part of Puerto Rico, which had a low population in comparison to the north. They came specifically to the Caribbean because it had similar weather and humidity as Corsica. They developed the dry Southern pieces of land that the government had given them, building the island’s first modern irrigation systems. The center of Corsican activity was Yauco, where coffee plantations were created by these settlers. Today, last names such as Santini, Pietrantoni, and Blasini are not uncommon, and their influences have lasted throughout time, especially in the Southern half of the island.

Seeing the positive effects of the Corsican immigration, and the progress the island had been in since their arrival, the Spanish continued to promote immigration to Puerto Rico. Thousands of Italian, German, Scottish, and Portuguese were made owners of land for them to develop.
In that time, the potato famine in Ireland was killing many, and poverty was rampant. Wanting to migrate to the Americas, many chose Puerto Rico for its catholic moral foundations. It was extremely difficult at the beginning for them to adjust to the island’s hot temperatures and humidity, but they eventually adapted and now form part of Puerto Rican society. As in the case of Corsicans, names such as Sullivan, O’Neill and Murphy are not uncommon in the island.

During the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the Canary Islands were the first to fall to nationalist control, driving many people into the mainland and abroad. Later, when parts of Valencia and Catalonia were lost to the war, thousands of Spaniards migrated to other parts of Europe and the Western Hemisphere. Many of these, especially Canarians, chose Puerto Rico because of its Hispanic ties and relative proximity in comparison with other former Spanish colonies. They looked for security and stability in an environment similar to that of the Canary Islands, and Puerto Rico was the most suitable. What began as a temporary exile became a permanent relocation, and the last significant wave of European migration to Puerto Rico.

The French or English that went to the Caribbean where only interested in setting up Sugar Plantations. Most of those islands were small and the plantations large. And with few people controlling most of the land not many French or English moved to the islands. Those sugar plantations imported many Africans.

 

[Detroitman32]

Lol at the last sentence.

It is a very important question!!!

 

[xchen08]

DValdron, while I agree that racism towards Hispanic was different than racism towards blacks, that same racism is still going to prevent annexation. America was a white country at the time, and the white leaders wouldn't want to include states that were primarily a minority. The only time this happened, IIRC, was Hawai'i, which had its own unique situation. And even then, it was 60 years before statehood.

Racism likely played a large part in why the U.S. refused annexation OTL. TTL, it is given that for whatever reason, U.S. racism was overcome sufficiently such that annexation went through. America was in the middle of the Reconstruction at this time, and had black Congressmen and Senators. Mississippi was black majority, and both of its Senators were black. So, the Radical Republicans wanting a few more safe Republican votes pushing through annexation and expedited statehood is certainly not ASB, if not particularly likely. In a situation where annexation already went through, statehood become outright likely. Remember that Hawaii and the other minority U.S. territories all came into U.S. possession after the end of Reconstruction and the formation of the Southern Democrat block.

The Dominican Republic didn't ask for statehood. They just wanted cash to pay off the debt.

No, but they asked for annexation at a time when all U.S. territories were expected to become states once they had sufficient population and government institutions.

I disagree that it was like Texas. Texas was controlled by white men (Sam Houston, an American, was president, remember), had strong cultural ties to America, was a push for another slave state (the South was actually trying to get as many states from Mexico as it could, just so slave states would outnumber free states). The Dominican Republic had none of the above.

I'd say Texas is a very good comparison. Texas annexation had strong support from the Democrats and strong opposition from the other parties. It was expected to provide reliably Democratic Senators and Representatives to increase southern, slaveholder strength in Congress. Dominican annexation in a situation where it went through would be exactly the same as above, but with Republicans instead of Democrats at a time when Republicans dominated all branches of government. Unlike the case of Hawaii, there would not be a strong block of Southern politicians strongly opposed to statehood whose votes need to be bought, and unlike the Philippines, the population is not so large that statehood would give it massive voting power.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The U.S. Navy was behind the times. It kept using wooden steam sloops and rusting monitors from the Civil War for decades during possibly the most rapid period of naval evolution in history. Congress was so stingy with funding that the Navy had to build new monitors by building it on top of an old one being scrapped and calling it modernization since Congress wouldn't authorize any new construction.

Actually the new monitors that the Navy built under 'rebuilding' funds were not built on the top of an old one. It was a 'slight of hand' trick the Navy used, it would basically disassemble the old monitor and build a new ship in its place with the same name as the old. There were old ACW monitors that were held onto and mobilized as harbor defense ships during the Spanish-American War.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Racism likely played a large part in why the U.S. refused annexation OTL. TTL, it is given that for whatever reason, U.S. racism was overcome sufficiently such that annexation went through. America was in the middle of the Reconstruction at this time, and had black Congressmen and Senators. Mississippi was black majority, and both of its Senators were black. So, the Radical Republicans wanting a few more safe Republican votes pushing through annexation and expedited statehood is certainly not ASB, if not particularly likely. In a situation where annexation already went through, statehood become outright likely. Remember that Hawaii and the other minority U.S. territories all came into U.S. possession after the end of Reconstruction and the formation of the Southern Democrat block.

I'll give you that. But it's not like racism is the only reason the Dominican Republic wasn't annexed. Support for statehood won't be as strong as support for annexation, and we can assume that without a major POD, annexation will only barely pass.

I'd say Texas is a very good comparison. Texas annexation had strong support from the Democrats and strong opposition from the other parties. It was expected to provide reliably Democratic Senators and Representatives to increase southern, slaveholder strength in Congress. Dominican annexation in a situation where it went through would be exactly the same as above, but with Republicans instead of Democrats at a time when Republicans dominated all branches of government. Unlike the case of Hawaii, there would not be a strong block of Southern politicians strongly opposed to statehood whose votes need to be bought, and unlike the Philippines, the population is not so large that statehood would give it massive voting power.

The Radical Republicans controlled Congress at that time, had the support of Grant, and still couldn't do it. They had control for the forseeable future (they managed to last in undisputed control for another decade). At that point in time, they simply didn't need the extra votes. They already had a supermajority.

 

[xchen08]

I'll give you that. But it's not like racism is the only reason the Dominican Republic wasn't annexed. Support for statehood won't be as strong as support for annexation, and we can assume that without a major POD, annexation will only barely pass.

Well, annexation requires a supermajority (2/3) while statehood only requires a simple majority. So assuming POD sufficient to swing enough votes to get a supermajority for annexation, it's not hard to imagine that it also swings enough for a simple majority for statehood.

The Radical Republicans controlled Congress at that time, had the support of Grant, and still couldn't do it. They had control for the forseeable future (they managed to last in undisputed control for another decade). At that point in time, they simply didn't need the extra votes. They already had a supermajority.

I'd say one good POD might be the Radical Republicans realizing that the political state of affairs could not continue indefinitely, and deciding to get as much of a long term advantage as possible before being forced to reenfranchise Southern whites and while they still could blame the Democrats for the Civil War to Northern voters. There's plenty of evidence for the Radical Republicans being willing to put aside racism for political gain, so they decide to annex and admit Dominica while they still could.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Well, annexation requires a supermajority (2/3) while statehood only requires a simple majority. So assuming POD sufficient to swing enough votes to get a supermajority for annexation, it's not hard to imagine that it also swings enough for a simple majority for statehood

...really?

Nevermind, then. I thought they both required supermajorities.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In 1869 the president of the Dominican Republic requested that the U.S. annex the country and while this was supported by the president
of the United States it ended up failing in the Senate where the vote was split in half for and against, falling short of the Constitutionally
required 2/3.

???? Where in the Constitution does it say you need 2/3? I took a quick glance and didn't see ANYTHING there about annexing new territory.

 

[xchen08]

???? Where in the Constitution does it say you need 2/3? I took a quick glance and didn't see ANYTHING there about annexing new territory.

The Dominican Republic was (and is) a recognized sovereign state. Therefore the annexation takes the form of a treaty between the Dominican Republic and the United States, and treaties binding the United States are subject to 2/3 ratification by the Senate.

 

[Metro]

???? Where in the Constitution does it say you need 2/3? I took a quick glance and didn't see ANYTHING there about annexing new territory.

Treaties require 2/3 vote in the Senate. This was a treaty of Annexation.

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

 

[Solomaxwell6]

The Dominican Republic was (and is) a recognized sovereign state. Therefore the annexation takes the form of a treaty between the Dominican Republic and the United States, and treaties binding the United States are subject to 2/3 ratification by the Senate.

Treaties require 2/3 vote in the Senate. This was a treaty of Annexation.

Technically, a normal majority is all that's needed, if it's done by joint resolution. That's how Texas was annexed. It's a Constitutional loophole, really.

So I guess that would be another possible POD. They annex it Texas-style, rather than the way they bought Native American lands (which used the 2/3s rule). Then you only need one person to switch sides, which is a lot easier than getting a dozen or whatever.

 

[htgriffin]

All of this is making the very blithe assumption that Dominicans stand for being annexed. They'd just been thru a brutal war vs Spain to kick out their old colonial masters. Spain'd been (falsely) assured by Dominican leaders that the great majority of Dominicans wanted them back.

As mentioned by another, fast-tracking the place to statehood (Governor Baez doing little more than changing his stationary and picking whatever anglophone cronies as senators) in the interval before the fall of Reconstriction is not only possible but would short circut a lot of the revolt.

Now it is quite possible that the place ends up a dumping ground for the more politcally active Negroes in the south (which would contribute to anglification over the generations), but it may also put a break on White Supremacy on the federal level... which in turn will affect the later caribbian adventured and possibly cause Philipino statehood to be considered as well presuming OTL's Spanish American thing.

HTG