After the attack on Pearl Harbor was there anyway that as a reward for the heroic sacrifices of the residents of the Philippines during the war that the Philippines become a territory then possibly a state circa 1960?
The Philippines the 51st state.
- Thread starter Musketeer513
- Start date
The US didn’t want it and the Filipinos didn’t want it. Independence was a done deal anyhow the Tyddings-Mcduffie act had already committed the US to a withdrawal from the islands and the US was never particularly interested in the islands beyond its natural harbors
Marc
Donor
Well, we had sort of promised them independence, the war delayed that for a few years.
But assuming for some reason we hadn't, consider that the Philippines would be the largest state by far with almost 27 million people circa 1960 as compared to about 17 millions in New York, then the most populous.
And they would all Asian and almost all Catholic - deal breakers back then.
But assuming for some reason we hadn't, consider that the Philippines would be the largest state by far with almost 27 million people circa 1960 as compared to about 17 millions in New York, then the most populous.
And they would all Asian and almost all Catholic - deal breakers back then.
For a Commonwealth scheduled for independence, to become a territory would not be a reward!
The only possibility for the Philippines to become a US state would be much earlier--but that's very unlikely not only because of racism but because it had so many people it would seriously upset the balance of power in the House and in the Electoral College.
Last edited:
The war actually pushed it up by a year, the original independence date was set as 1946; then the territory was lost to Japan in 1942 and when the war ended in 1945 the US sorta threw their hands up and said "Whatever, a year early."
EDIT: Nah I'm wrong, formal independence occured right on schedule. 4 July 1946.
Last edited:
You'd need a much earlier POD. Maybe have the early Phillino nationalist movement in the 1890/s1880s averted with the same bunch edging more towards supporting American annexation. Averting the Phillipino/American war is probably necessary.
The other problem is that the US was never really all that interested in keeping the Phillipines. Meaning you'd need to ramp up American public support for holding the Phillipines to a very large degree. For statehood you'r going to be fighting A) American racism B) American Anti Catholicism C) The sheer size of the Philippines would dominate Congress.
The other problem is that the US was never really all that interested in keeping the Phillipines. Meaning you'd need to ramp up American public support for holding the Phillipines to a very large degree. For statehood you'r going to be fighting A) American racism B) American Anti Catholicism C) The sheer size of the Philippines would dominate Congress.
Marc
Donor
Ah yes, that was a data point that I relied on faulty memory as opposed to my quick look up in regards to populations. Yes, the Philippine Independence Act passed in 1934 actually set up a 10 year schedule for independence - along with turning Filipinos into "aliens" instead of "nationals" the idea seems to be to make it harder for any of the residing in the United States to become American residents and eventually citizens.
And that bit is a reinforcer of my note that the United States really didn't want to incorporate as citizens non-Europeans in large numbers.
Last edited:
SsgtC
Banned
As others have said, you'd need a POD immediately after the Spanish-American War. The Philippine-American war caused a lot of bad blood and by 1900 it was generally agreed that the Philippines would eventually be granted their independence. But, if you are somehow able to avoid all that, you're going to need a mechanism to break the Philippines into several smaller states instead of admitting them all as one single state. Probably Mindanao as one, Luzon as another, Mindoro and Panay as a third and so on and so forth.
"As a reward for your heroic sacrifices during the war [that was the premise of the OP--that the Filipinos were to be "rewarded'] you will be denied the full independence we promised you--oh, and you also won't have statehood for decades. So no full self-government for you and no full participation in America's self-government, at least for some decades."
Am I the only one for whom this makes no sense whatever?
Not any chances make Philippines state. At least not one. Its population would make 1/4 US population. And majority of population is Catholic and non-white. There is reasons why even much smaller Puerto Rico hasn't still gained statehood. And after Pearl Harbor it was already impossible when USA had already accepted act for its independence. Most what they can get with any post American-Spanish War is Puerto Rican type commonwealth system and I am not sure if even that can survive very long. Statehood is just pure ASB if then Americans don't genocide 90 % of population.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Not sure one on the scale we are talking about is even possible in this era with this timeframe. This isn't mid 20th century industrialised horror, and even the nightmare of the Belgian Congo didnt get up to the figures discussed earlier.
On a side note, not directed agianst you but a general observation speaking as a relatively new member, I do get worried how many threads here involve genocide at some point, can we stop using it as a 'perhaps a genocide might change things' card? It's one of the vilest crimes humanity is capable of, not a trump card in an intellectual exercise.
SsgtC
Banned
While racism and anti-Catholic sentiment had a lot to do with that originally, at this point it's basically not a state because of two factors: one, the territorial government is essentially bankrupt and can't function without Federal Funds. And two: naked politics. PR is pretty solidly Democratic. Granting it statehood basically gives the Democrats two extra Senate seats and a couple of House seats. It probably won't become a state until there's an area that's pretty solidly Republican that can also be granted statehood at the same time
You'd have to break it up into a few states, there's no way the US would accept a singular State of the Philippines. The sheer size demographically would make it unpalatable to any US politician back then - there was 27 million people in 1960, about 61 million people in 1990, and 92 million people in 2010. New York, the most populous state in 1960, had barely 17 million people.
I could see them admitting it piecemeal as various states: Luzon, Calabarzon, Bicol, Mindoro, Panay (likely including Guimaras as well), Visayas, and Mindano. Alternatively, you could likely get it to be like Puerto Rico where it's a commonwealth within the US.
I could see them admitting it piecemeal as various states: Luzon, Calabarzon, Bicol, Mindoro, Panay (likely including Guimaras as well), Visayas, and Mindano. Alternatively, you could likely get it to be like Puerto Rico where it's a commonwealth within the US.
SsgtC
Banned
Probably something closer to the Compact of Free Association between the United States and The Marshall Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. Where they're Sovereign States, but the US provides defense for the islands and access to Social Services and Federal Grants
Admitting it as several states is even less likely. It means that the balance of power in the Senate, too is upset (at least admitting it as one state will mostly confine the change to the House and the Electoral College, with only two additional senators).
BTW, as unlikely as Filipino statehood was, it could give us the first Muslim member of Congress: "My nominee is Hadji Butu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadji_Butu elected in alt-1916 from the Mindanao and Sulu congressional district..." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...m-member-of-us-congress.467572/#post-18913241
My memory is that the American progressive movement did not want an American colonial empire. They pushed to not annex Cuba and the Philippines. I do agree that racism was part of it
Marc
Donor
(Note this isn't about current politics per se, but adding context to the historical question about adding States)
Well, one could argue that there several States, or more, that are essentially bankrupt sans Federal Funding. And, financial status historically hasn't been a major issue if we favored admission.
As for politics: Puerto Rico was, at least until 2016, thought of as quite a "purple" state. The Partido Nuevo Progresista which is the majority party is considered to be the Island's "Republican Party" - albeit with looser ties to the GOP.
As for the GOP specifically:
2012 Platform:
“We support the right of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S government.”
2016:
“We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. We further recognize the historic significance of the 2012 local referendum in which a 54 percent majority voted to end Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. territory, and 61 percent chose statehood over options for sovereign nationhood. We support the federally sponsored political status referendum authorized and funded by an Act of Congress in 2014 to ascertain the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. Once the 2012 local vote for statehood is ratified, Congress should approve an enabling act with terms for Puerto Rico’s future admission as the 51st state of the Union.”
Last edited: