Early Hawaiian Statehood - Effects on American Politics?

[Super_Cool2]

When Hawaii was an independent nation, both as a kingdom and a republic, there were times when it tried to negotiate its way into the USA as a full state. This never happened, and it would eventually just be seized in 1898 and made a territory for about 60 years before finally becoming a state.

Suppose McKinley gets Hawaiian statehood during the first term of his presidency through a negotiation rather than seizure, with 1900 being the first presidential election for Hawaiians.

-How will this affect politics on the state level? Republicans dominated the state prior to the 50s and the Democrats ever since. Would there be a more even balance between the parties with earlier statehood and representation?

-Would Hawaii being a state affect any elections or politics on the national level? Hawaiian Congressmen and senators will be very involved with Japanese policy in the interwar years, for instance. With a large Japanese population, this could make things interesting.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Statehood for Hawaii would be very awkward before the 1950s, because the population was majority non-white (Chinese and Japanese). This was very objectionable to Southern white supremacists. The "Republic of Hawaii" (before 1898) and the territorial government were dominated by the white planter/trader/missionary clique, which placated the whtie supremacists, but they would have opposed statehood vehemently.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Hawaiian Congressmen and senators will be very involved with Japanese policy in the interwar years, for instance

Maybe the Haiwaiian Reps and Senators can help convince their colleagues — don’t panic and don’t over-react, but yes, Japan is a large empire aiming to expand

Famously, Japanese leaders really focused on the fact that we passed the military draft by “only one vote.” I don’t know if this is strictly true, as U.S. legislation has multiple stages.

But Japan leaders really focused and over-focused on this.

It doesn’t mean that “we don’t want to fight” even when you embarrass and humiliate us at Pearl Harbor, with 2,403 U.S. casualties, and with photos such as the USS Arizona that could be and would be splashed across newspapers. Fatal miscalculation on the part of the Japanese.

 

[Dancing Fool]

the territorial government were dominated by the white planter/trader/missionary clique, which placated the whtie supremacists, but they would have opposed statehood vehemently

best case scenario, perhaps Asian somehow “cuts across” their existing racial categories ? ?

 

[Super_Cool2]

Statehood for Hawaii would be very awkward before the 1950s, because the population was majority non-white (Chinese and Japanese). This was very objectionable to Southern white supremacists. The "Republic of Hawaii" (before 1898) and the territorial government were dominated by the white planter/trader/missionary clique, which placated the whtie supremacists, but they would have opposed statehood vehemently.

Things like that make me wonder if it would alter state politics.

A white planter-dominated government with a discriminated against non-whites sounds right up the Dixiecrat's alley. If the government thinks the Democratic Party is actually their natural ally in the USA by siding with the Dixiecrats (despite being Republican-style businessmen), it means once the lower classes are enfranchised later on, the Asian majority could end up Republican.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

best case scenario, perhaps Asian somehow “cuts across” their existing racial categories ? ?

No - the Dixiecrats opposed even an elected territorial legislature for Hawaii.

 

[Wendell]

Maybe your best POD is to have annexation efforts succeed under Harrison or Cleveland changing his position on the issue?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Famously, Japanese leaders really focused on the fact that we passed the military draft by “only one vote.” I don’t know if this is strictly true, as U.S. legislation has multiple stages.

The key vote was in fact 203-202. However, there are claims that one or more of those who voted "No" or "present" would have changed their votes to "Yes" if it appeared the bill would fail.

BTW, the regional and partisan distribution of the vote is interesting. Outside the South (the "Confederate" states plus KY, OK, and WV), the vote was 89-194 (D 68- 62, R 21-132). In the "South", it was 114-8 (D 114-4, R 0-4).

 

[Beatriz]

best case scenario, perhaps Asian somehow “cuts across” their existing racial categories ? ?

No, educated white people used the white-black-yellow-red racial schema with all nonwhites as colored

Blumenbach does not name his five groups in 1779 but gives their geographic distribution. The color adjectives used in 1779 are weiss "white" (Caucasian race), gelbbraun "yellow-brown" (Mongolian race), schwarz "black" (Aethiopian race), kupferrot"copper-red" (American race) and schwarzbraun"black-brown" (Malayan race).[/quote]

 

[Geekhis Khan]

It would definitely require a Pre-1900 PoD I think, so this may be the wrong forum. Perhaps a "Successful Reconstruction" TL with two or more southern states dominated by a Freeman/Scalawag/Carpetbagger Republican coalition. At a bare minimum some sort of Jim Crow situation where only white land owners could vote or hold office and perhaps Native Hawaiians are under some sort of "Reservation" type system ruled de jura by the Royal Family, though how you'd enforce that for long I don't know. You'd quickly have a growing Sovereignty movement with Asians allying with the Native Hawaiians, I'd expect, and I can't see the Royal Family remaining convenient puppets for long in such an environment.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Outside the South (the "Confederate" states plus KY, OK, and WV), the vote was 89-194 (D 68- 62, R 21-132). In the "South", it was 114-8 (D 114-4, R 0-4).

about the 1940 vote in the U.S. Congress for the military draft.

Which tells me that back then both Republicans and non-southern Democrats were more isolationist.

Do you happen to have a good source for this?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

about the 1940 vote in the U.S. Congress for the military draft.

Which tells me that back then both Republicans and non-southern Democrats were more isolationist.

Indeed. Some western Democrats, like Sen Burton Wheeler (D-MT), were fanatical isolationists.

Do you happen to have a good source for this?

TO PASS H.J. RES. 222, AMENDMENT TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE … -- House Vote #63 -- Aug 12, 1941

House Vote #63 in 1941, in the United States Congress.

www.govtrack.us

 

[Dancing Fool]

Indeed. Some western Democrats, like Sen Burton Wheeler (D-MT), were fanatical isolationists.

TO PASS H.J. RES. 222, AMENDMENT TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE … -- House Vote #63 -- Aug 12, 1941

House Vote #63 in 1941, in the United States Congress.

www.govtrack.us

Opinion | Did We Almost Lose the Army?

www.nytimes.com

“The Army did argue that if draftees weren't kept in uniform for longer than one year, the disruption would be disastrous. It failed to convince 60 representatives, including myself, who were staunch New Dealers and ordinarily followed Roosevelt's lead.”

——————————————

So, it sounds like the 1941 extension of the military draft was a real cluster-…. ! ! !

Well, let’s just say it was a thoroughly messed up situation. And for a man of President Franklin Roosevelt’s political abilities. Well, sometimes when you delegate, things don’t work out and then you have to gracefully and matter-of-factly recover. You still have to keep delegating.