Source For This Image

A Plan to Dissolve America’s Forgotten Empire

Riley Kane
Jul 30, 2017 · 11 min read

Whether the United States of America should be considered an empire because of its world-spanning network of alliances, economic might, and cultural sway is a fascinating ongoing debate. Organizationally, an empire is usually understood as an unequal political relationship within a single political entity. By that logic, America is assuredly an empire in this organizational sense — as all governments under Washington were not born equal. These common vacation destinations, but rarely considered overseas territories constitute America’s forgotten and largely unwanted empire.

The Forgotten American Empire

Washington, D.C. is a good place to start. The capital district was singled out for direct rule by the U.S. Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. In 1790 Virginia and Maryland ceded a 100 square mile area to the federal government that became Washington, D.C., though in 1846 Virginia’s portion of the cession was returned. In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution granted D.C. voting rights in the electoral College and in 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act devolving decision making powers to the city council and mayor but retaining a veto over council decisions and close financial monitoring.

Considering the recent financial crisis in Puerto Rico, perhaps Congress’s concern for such oversight is justified. Puerto Rico became a part of the United States in 1898 (along with Guam and the Philippines), annexed after America’s victory in the Spanish-American War. In 1900, the Foraker Act established a limited civilian government in Puerto Rico and was expanded by the Jones-Shaforth Act of 1917, which granted American citizenship to all Puerto Ricans. In 1952, Puerto Ricans approved a constitution and became a commonwealth. The recent financial crisis was brought on in part by massive Puerto Rican emigration to the mainland U.S. — which undermined pension schemes — and in part by the successive repeal of tax exemptions that promoted business development. The recent crisis renewed calls for a change in status, in a June 2017 referendum statehood was supported by a massive 97% margin, but with only 23% of voters turning out.

There remain many smaller islands throughout the United States’ demesne. Guam is the next most populous and also a commonwealth. Until 1950, the U.S. Navy directly controlled Guam as a naval station, after which Congress established a civilian government and granted the people of Guam U.S. citizenship. The Northern Marianas Islands are also a commonwealth, and a part of the same geographic island chain as Guam. Historically they were possessed by the Germans and then Japanese before being granted to the United States as a UN Trust Territory after World War Two. In 1976, the Northern Marianas Islands opted to begin the process of integration into United States as a commonwealth, while other Trust Territories (present-day Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Republic of the Marshall Islands) sought independence and Free Association.

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) were bought from Denmark in 1916 amid fears that Germany might acquire them as a submarine base. Congress granted citizenship to the people of USVI in 1927. Barely 30% of the electorate turned out in a recent status referendum, invalidating the poll that favored maintaining the territory’s current status. There has been an ongoing disagreement within Congress about the proper devolution of powers to USVI.

Map showing American Samoa in relation to countries/territories around it.

American Samoa is the only territory where the local population are not U.S. Citizens; they are U.S. Nationals and are guaranteed fewer protections. American Samoans may travel freely in the United States but must still apply for citizenship, albeit on a fast-track. The United States acquired its portion of Samoa in the 1899 Tripartite Convention, which resolved a territorial dispute between the U.S., Germany, and Britain.

In addition to these significant populated territories, there are also numerous unpopulated, unincorporated, and unorganized island territories that dot the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. I conclude my very brief introduction of non-state political entities in America with this helpful reference table, for comparative purposes.

American State/Territory Chart[i]

I favor the dissolution of this forgotten American empire and the full integration of the various overseas territories into the United States, though in different capacities. As I see it, the question hinges on citizenship status. Let us consider if Congress were to grant Puerto Rican independence. Since all Puerto Ricans are citizens, such an act would create a separate nation composed entirely of Americans — unless Congress revoked their citizenship. Revoking citizenship by statute would be grounds for a constitutional crisis. Our law does provide for revocation, but as a punishment for acting against the country. Perhaps Puerto Ricans could be considered to renounce their citizenship upon becoming citizens of a sovereign Puerto Rico, but being forced to choose allegiance and the necessary division of families would surely come to count among the ugliest spectacles of American history. Although the future of these territories is discussed in terms of statehood, independence, or maintaining the status quo, the fact that they are populated by American citizens has made the issue moot. The only future for Puerto Rico, USVI, the Northern Marianas Islands, and Guam is full integration into the Untied States.

Aerial view over San Juan, Puerto Rico. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Puerto Rico should be admitted as a state. Puerto Ricans are American Citizens and in all their status referenda the highest percent ever favoring independence was only 5.49%. Puerto Rico’s population (as observed in the above chart) is greater than that of many states, making it a contender for statehood by size. In addition to the island’s large population, there are over 5 million people of Puerto Rican descent living in the mainland U.S. Regardless of their origins, the Puerto Rican people are an American people.

The U.S. Virgin Islands will need to be incorporated into another state. USVI’s population is minuscule compared with the least populated state (see Wyoming on the above chart). The most straightforward solution would be for the administrative unification of Puerto Rico and USVI and their entry into the Union as one state. The two territories are adjacent and from their proximity they would have similar concerns regarding defense, tourism, agriculture, and the environment.

The best objections would be that the respective populations of Puerto Rico and USVI are ethnically and linguistically different and perhaps that they have developed different identities associated with their own societies. I find both lacking and roughly answered by the same response: there is great diversity within many American states with populations more diverse than a union between the Puerto Ricans and USV-Islanders. Further, despite being a unified country the United States remains incredibly diverse and the people of former American Caribbean territories who would share a common legacy of struggled for full membership in the United States. Integration is no threat to old identities and just as old identities were fabricated from common experiences, new ones could be formed common triumphs.

That notion brings me to the Pacific territories of Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands (whose populations are American Citizens), and American Samoa (whose population are American Nationals, which grants the latter special consideration). Again, the populations of these territories are too small to be admitted as individual states, so integration into Hawaii would provide the easiest route to representation. Additionally, not unlike case of the Caribbean territories, the commercial, security, geographic, and environmental interests of the Hawaiians, Guamanians, Northern Marianas Islanders, and American Samoans align.

This proposal is more radical and has better objections. First, similarly to before one might object on ethno-cultural grounds. My response would refer back to my previous comments regarding the Caribbean territories. As far as identity goes, the Pacific offers a stronger case for unity. The far-flung islands of the Pacific were settled over the centuries by a common people, the Polynesians, who spread out across the Pacific from East Asia. The isolation of the Polynesians after they arrived to their destinations and their slow but steady spread produced a flowering of cultural diversity, but all connected to a common root. This offers tremendous possibilities for the creation new identity myths and the celebration of old ones.

A second objection might relate to the administrative costs an expanded Hawaii (perhaps renamed Polynesia?) would bear. No doubt costs would be higher, but the Federal Government already governs these lands and many federal agencies responsible for region are already based in Hawaii. There would need to be new routes of funding and bureaucratic re-shuffling, but that would likely result in a better organized and streamlined administration.

A third, very valid, objection is partly my own: since American Samoans are not citizens, then their future is not already bound to that of the United States. The American Samoans should wait and observe how the integration of other Pacific territories into Hawaii proceeds and then determine whether they too should join Hawaii or pursue independence as a signatory to the Compact of Free Association.

The final case is that of Washington, D.C. The capital may very well be admitted as a state outright, however, I personally am very wary of creating a city-state out of the nation’s capital. American history has followed a centralizing tendency, seeing influence and power accrue in the capital city. This has transpired without two Senators and at least one Representative fighting for their piece of the governmental pie, outright D.C. statehood would surely promote our country’s questionably beneficial tendency for centralization. Further, statehood for the capital would undermine the principle that all states in the Union are equals, since a capital state would by definition stand above the rest. Statehood may also be unconstitutional, as Article I, Section 8 declares that “Congress shall…. exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District… as may… become the Seat of Government of the United States.”

To that end I support a solution that retains the District of Columbia as a territorial and administrative entity distinct from any state, but has its permanent population granted citizenship in a state (such as Maryland). This could be achieved perhaps by severing the residential from the governmental portions of the capital and returning the former to Maryland, while the District of Columbia proper would remain as the most important office park in the land, governed directly by Congress and host only to the transient population of government employees, perhaps modeled on the relationship between Rome and the Vatican.

One objection might be that many nations have capital administrative regions on par with other administrative regions in their nation. I would respond that, as mentioned previously, the United States is founded on principles of decentralized rule and equality between the states. Historically, varied proposals for the arrangement of stars on the flag were rejected for appearing to make a single state stand out; designating a capital state would be a far more serious transgression. Another objection might also be that this would still deny some people representation. However, that would be far from the case. First, D.C. statehood would provide over-representation to the government bureaucracy, it already literally runs the nation. The bureaucratic class would then also run a state with the congressional representation and vetoing power of two Senators.

Secondly, transient residents of D.C. are often already citizens of other states or foreign representatives and are represented elsewhere. Third, the permanent residents would likely be better served as a part of Maryland than as a part of a D.C., which the Virginians in Alexandria realized this in 1848. A state for the government would be interested in matters of the government, not the concerns of its normal citizens. A related point is that Virginia and Maryland already host a significant number of government facilities and serve as the permanent residencies for many who work in D.C., so there are already Congresspeople interested in the welfare of the capital and representing ordinary Americans who work within D.C.’s bounds. My scheme would seek to provide representation to the ordinary people currently living within the capital’s bounds without further weighting the scales to favor further centralization.

This overall plan is complicated and I admit is highly idealistic. The social, ethnic, and cultural hurdles involved would be challenging; but in our increasingly pluralistic society, I think more bridgeable than ever before. The legal hurdles are more likely to scupper any resolution. Congress has responsibility for the territories, which necessarily involves the President, and the assent of states involved, and the territories themselves.

The accession of Puerto Rico and USVI would be comparatively easy, since Congress would only need to incorporate them and approve their state constitution. If Hawaii, as a sovereign state, did not wish to absorb the Pacific territories, then it could resist an effort by Congress to force it to. Such a situation would be fertile ground for a Supreme Court case.

Additionally, all these actions would require the consent of the polities involved, ensuring the consent of the governed. The territories have never been given a serious chance to vote for their futures, all the previous votes have essentially been government-organized surveys. A legal framework empowering the people of the territories to make these choices in their own time is required for this effort to succeed.

A complete realization of my vision would first require:

1) An act of Congress that would fully incorporate all territories, with the exception of American Samoa.

2) That Hawaii would amend its constitution, in consultation with Congress and the governments of the Pacific territories, to allow for the integration of those territories on agreeable terms.

3) An Act of Congress that would make the unpopulated Pacific territories part of Hawaii, perhaps in consultation with the state, on terms similar to those of the federally administered lands in the Western States.

4) An Act of Congress that would grant the American Samoan legislature official standing and the power to determine finally whether it should be annexed into Hawaii or become a Free Associated State with the United States, after some interval of time.

5) An Act of Congress that would permit USVI’s integration into Puerto Rico on agreeable terms and make Puerto Rico the 51st state with its current constitution, perhaps pending a final statehood plebiscite or ratification vote by the commonwealth legislature. This would also require a change to the Puerto Rican constitution to provide for the aforementioned USVI integration process.

6) An act of Congress, possibly even a Constitutional amendment if needed, in consultation with Maryland that would see residential portions of Washington, D.C. returned to Maryland and/or permanent residents given Maryland citizenship.

6.5) The repeal of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution. This is the least pressing, but necessary once D.C. is shorn of its permanent population.

These measures would not force the various territories to make any decision. None would be rushed into shotgun political weddings; rather, they would be empowered them to decide when and how they are to be fully joined to the United States. This would be challenging, but we cannot abandon the pursuit of a more perfect union.

-

Riley Edward Kane is a student at Mortiz College of Law at The Ohio State University.

[i] Data from the CIA World Fact Book and Hawaii.gov and Alaska.gov for those states’ populations, Washington D.C.’s information was found at https://mayor.dc.gov/release/washington-dc-population-now-highest-40-years.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade