WI: No Hawaiian/Alaskan Statehood in 1959

Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico were in discussion for statehood at many points -not always overlapping- before it was made a reality for all but the latter. Alaska and Hawaii were thrown in together to address their opponents' concerns: Alaska would vote Democratic, Hawaii would vote Republican, and so Congress could vote for both to cancel the political threat of the other out. However, it wasn't necessarily meant to be in 1959, just as it had fallen through before.

What if Hawaii and Alaska did not get statehood in 1959?
 
Curious, what was the population of each territory in 1959?

Hawaii: 622,000
Alaska: 224,000

Minimum population for statehood is 60,000. Republicans opposed Alaska because they were worried it would vote Democratic, and that it had too small of a population and would become a welfare state. Southern Democrats opposed Alaska because they were worried it would add more Civil Rights supporters to congress. Democrats opposed Hawaii because they were worried it would vote Republican. Southern Democrats opposed it because of the racial issue, and because everyone must have been a Communist.
 
Hawaii: 622,000
Alaska: 224,000

I believe minimum population for statehood is 200,000. Republicans opposed Alaska because they were worried it would vote Democratic, and that it had too small of a population and would become a welfare state. Southern Democrats opposed Alaska because they were worried it would add more Civil Rights supporters to congress. Democrats opposed Hawaii because they were worried it would vote Republican. Southern Democrats opposed it because of the racial issue, and because everyone must have been a Communist.

Ironic considering how it was the other way around.
 
So if Congress were deadlocked on this issue, you're asking how long statehood for Alaska and Hawai'i could plausibly be delayed? I'm gonna hazard a guess of at least a couple years, till a new election cycle. Possibly till the late 1960s after much of the political shifts of the Civil Rights Movement had come into play.
 
Ironic considering how it was the other way around.

Indeed. That was a gradual change, though. Alaska still had very prominent Democrats until not so many decades ago. You could be a Democrat and become governor. In terms of the presidential vote, the flip was almost immediate. Alaska went for Nixon, and Hawaii for Kennedy (after the recount).

So if Congress were deadlocked on this issue, you're asking how long statehood for Alaska and Hawai'i could plausibly be delayed? I'm gonna hazard a guess of at least a couple years, till a new election cycle. Possibly till the late 1960s after much of the political shifts of the Civil Rights Movement had come into play.

The problem is that it's one of those things where new issues come up and it's a good enough excuse to decline the idea, and push it off. Puerto Rico still isn't a state, and it was in the same position as Hawaii or Alaska were, and it still is in that position.

For example, what would a statehood argument look like if it's among arguments like ending the draft and lowering the voting age in the late 1960s/early 1970s? What if they still weren't states?
 
Hawaii: 622,000
Alaska: 224,000

Minimum population for statehood is 60,000. Republicans opposed Alaska because they were worried it would vote Democratic, and that it had too small of a population and would become a welfare state. Southern Democrats opposed Alaska because they were worried it would add more Civil Rights supporters to congress. Democrats opposed Hawaii because they were worried it would vote Republican. Southern Democrats opposed it because of the racial issue, and because everyone must have been a Communist.

Democrats were concerned about Hawaii even after the early 50s "democratic revolution", which broke the political power of the Republican-supported planter elite the main event that essentially handed the state to the democrats on a silver platter? I'd be surprised if they didn't take that into account.
 
Could someone explain how territories work for the US? Most of the Canadian north is composed of its 3 territories, their populations are too small to warrant provincial status I believe. Regardless they are considered integral parts of Canada however they are regulated mostly by the federal government and not local governments.

What would be the biggest issue to an Alaska that remained a territory?
 
Could someone explain how territories work for the US? Most of the Canadian north is composed of its 3 territories, their populations are too small to warrant provincial status I believe. Regardless they are considered integral parts of Canada however they are regulated mostly by the federal government and not local governments.

What would be the biggest issue to an Alaska that remained a territory?

Well, our territories don't get voting representation in our legislature like Canada's do.
 
Democrats were concerned about Hawaii even after the early 50s "democratic revolution", which broke the political power of the Republican-supported planter elite the main event that essentially handed the state to the democrats on a silver platter? I'd be surprised if they didn't take that into account.

They're democrats, but they're Non-white democrats. :rolleyes:

How can proper Southern Democrats trust the Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Koreans?

Hell, when John Burns was elected the Southern Democrats cried that this was obviously proof that Hawaii was a haven for communist.

Alot of the opposition seems to be more based on racial ideas, than solid hard evidence.
 
Basically, what happened was that John Burns managed to convince LBJ to break the once-solid southern Democratic front against statehood. LBJ was after all running for president in 1960 and to get any chance for the nomination he had to broaden his support--southern conservatives would not be enough.
 
It is hardly conceivable that it wouldn't have been admitted by 1965 at the latest, given the liberalism of the 89th Congress.
 
Could someone explain how territories work for the US? Most of the Canadian north is composed of its 3 territories, their populations are too small to warrant provincial status I believe. Regardless they are considered integral parts of Canada however they are regulated mostly by the federal government and not local governments.

What would be the biggest issue to an Alaska that remained a territory?

Well, our territories don't get voting representation in our legislature like Canada's do.

This has me thinking, what would it look like if the United States governed their territories in that way? As part of this scenario as an aside scenario, what if Alaska and Hawaii remaining territories put pressure on the US give it's territories some form of representation?

It is hardly conceivable that it wouldn't have been admitted by 1965 at the latest, given the liberalism of the 89th Congress.

Statehood has been denied for any number of idiotic reasons throughout history. It stands to reason that such could happen again. Puerto Rico should be a state, and isn't for reasons X, Y, Z. In an alternate reality, Hawaii isn't a state and isn't for reasons X, Y, Z, which everyone accepts as valid reasons.
 
Statehood has been denied for any number of idiotic reasons throughout history. It stands to reason that such could happen again. Puerto Rico should be a state, and isn't for reasons X, Y, Z. In an alternate reality, Hawaii isn't a state and isn't for reasons X, Y, Z, which everyone accepts as valid reasons.

But Hawaiian statehood had already passed the House several times, and had only been defeated by filibusters in the Senate. It is really hard to see a conservative filibuster succeeding in the 1965-66 Senate, the most liberal in decades. If southern conservatives could no longer filibuster successfully against civil rights bills, it would be pointless for them to try to filibuster against Hawaii--when their real objection to Hawaii was precisely that Hawaiians were for obvious reasons pro-civil-rights.

Actually, I don't think that it had much chance of being defeated after the 1958 election (which already somewhat liberalized the Senate) either. It would have required a solid southern bloc against. That would have required LBJ to support the filibuster, and LBJ was not stupid--he knew he could not win the Democratic nomination for president if he were seen as a neo-Dixiecrat.

Besides, there really are differences in the Hawaiian and Puerto Rican situations, not just the language question but most notably that Puerto Ricans have been far more divided on statehood than Hawaiians were in the 1950's and 1960's. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012 on why the 2012 referendum remains controversial on the island.)
 
Top