What if Congress refused to annex Hawaii? Would the Republic of Hawaii continue indefinitely or would it revert to being a Kingdom? Which side would it be on in the World Wars? Would it maintain its property-based qualification system indefinitely? Would it fall under UN scrutiny for that after World War II?
WI: Congress refused to annex Hawaii
- Thread starter Quintuplicate
- Start date
Would there be? Without Hawaii would the U.S. be that involved in the Pacific region, especially in the western Pacific. Would there be any reason for Japan to attack the U.S. if they didn't straddle the communication lines to the Dutch East Indies?
It seems likely to me that the US will still impose an oil embargo on Japan for its actions leading up to WWII. Thus, the Japanese will have a great incentive to strike first especially if they can knock out most US naval infrastructure in the Pacific, though the lack of a US controlled Philippines means that it won't be as necessary. I do imagine that the US will have some Pacific naval interests ITTL, though of course not as much as OTL.
If annexation fails in 1898, it will succeed in 1899. This is also true of the Philippines. Observe the result of the 1898 election:
***
55th Congress (1897-1899)
Majority Party: Republican (44 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (34 seats)
Other Parties: 5 Populist; 5 Silver Republican; 2 Silver
Total Seats: 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56th Congress (1899-1901)
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (26 seats)
Other Parties: 5 Populist; 3 Silver Republican; 2 Silver
Vacant: 1
Total Seats: 90
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
America had long standing interests in Hawaii and will not allow anyone else to have it. Annexation is not absolute, but I doubt the British, or the Germans getting it. Not now.
Could the Republic of Hawaii rescind its consent to be annexed? Was it likely or is it ASB?
Which side would the Native Hawaiians take? Would they fight for the Republic or try to reestablish the Monarchy while the haole fought?
Yes. The United States had been heavily involved in the Pacific since...actually since about when Hawaii was found by westerners (the first trade voyages from the United States to China follow Cook's arrival by just a few decades). Think about Commodore Perry and so on. As far as Hawaii specifically was concerned, the United States had long-standing interests both by virtue of a significant portion of the population being of American descent and by virtue of treaties and agreements with Hawaiian governments that, for instance, gave the United States rights to use Pearl Harbor years before the overthrow of Liliuokalani. Even if somehow the monarchy isn't overthrown or the Republic endures (improbable, since its only real purpose was to be annexed by the United States) America is going to be significantly involved in Pacific affairs, with Hawaii as a strategic location of considerable importance.
Apparently the Newlands Resolution only passed 42-21 (exactly 2/3). If a few more Populists were in the Senate Chamber that day would it have changed the outcome?
The whole point of annexation by joint resolution (rather than treaty) is that it only requires a simple majority in each house.
There are constitutional arguments against the process, btw. As Andrew McLaughlin wrote in A Constitutional History of the United States about the annexation of Texas, "The defense of the treaty-method of annexation rested on the fact that negotiations with a foreign state must be carried on before admission, and also on the federative nature of the union; the Senate representing the states was the suitable body to determine whether a foreign state should be admitted to the privileges of association with the existing members of the union." https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.13065/page/n513 And in any event it is arguable that Texas was not a true precedent for Hawaii: "The procedure followed in the annexation of Texas did not constitute a conclusive precedent in favor of annexation of territory by joint resolution. Over fifty years later (1898) the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by a joint resolution ; but the method of annexing Texas did not constitute a proper precedent for the annexation of a land and people to be retained as a possession or in a territorial condition. Congressional authority for annexation of Texas rested on the constitutional power to admit new states; Hawaii was not and is not [McLaughlin was writing in 1935--DT] a state." https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.13065/page/n515
There was an actual treaty of annexation: http://big09a.angelfire.com/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
But it wasn't ratified as a treaty! The Newlands Resolution was passed instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newlands_Resolution It may have referred to the treaty, but unlike treaty annexation, it required only a simple majority in both houses. As it turned out, it did get two-thirds of the vote in the Senate, but it didn't need it.
I see your point. Could the opposers of annexation have taken whoever tried to enforce it to court over whether the resolution was valid (in the event that the Newlands Resolution didn't get two thirds)? Would the SCOTUS have struck it down (since
IIRC they were required to consider every appeal brought to them before 1988)?