TERRITORIAL RULE AND STATE DEVELOPMENT

Many of APD’s signal contributions to political science are a product of careful studies of state building in the United States. Borrowing from the rich comparative tradition in the social sciences, courses in the subfield often begin by contrasting the “weakness” of the liberal American state with the more centralized and supposedly more powerful states of Europe—a consequence of the mass democracy that took root in the United States before a centralized administrative state was fully developed (Skowronek Reference Skowronek1982). Therefore, the complex changes in governing authority that accompanied the construction of this new American state during the Progressive Era are central areas of inquiry in any undergraduate APD course (Bensel Reference Bensel1990; Carpenter Reference Carpenter2001; Skocpol Reference Skocpol1992; Skowronek Reference Skowronek1982).

These watershed moments of American state development—from the fall of the Jacksonian spoils system to the remarkable increase in American state capacity in the postwar period—also can be paired with studies of the American state at its most remote periphery, where it often was most powerful and autonomous (Balogh Reference Balogh2009). Although territorial expansion was a constant theme in US development throughout the nineteenth century, the acquisition of overseas colonies that were never intended for white settlement demanded new systems of state authority (Go and Foster Reference Go and Foster2003; McCoy and Scarano Reference McCoy and Scarano2009). For example, the buildup to the Spanish–American War and the acquisition of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawai‘i created an urgent need to modernize the US military (Skowronek Reference Skowronek1982; Trubowitz Reference Trubowitz1998; Zakaria Reference Zakaria1999). In a similar way, the overseas empire placed enormous stress on the American foreign-affairs state—one filled with party spoilsmen—at the end of the nineteenth century. Over time, such demands led to changes in Washington bureaucracies aimed at bolstering the governing capacity of the US foreign-affairs state.

Yet, bureaucratic reform was not the only way the American state adapted to these new governing responsibilities. A close look at territorial expansion shows that even in foreign affairs, the American state’s close relationship with private organizations—particularly its partnership with finance capital—played an essential role in augmenting its power abroad. These public–private collaborations, which became known as “Dollar Diplomacy,” relied on private loans from American banks to sovereign Caribbean nations that were guaranteed by US financial and military advisors (Rosenberg Reference Rosenberg1999).

The governance of an overseas empire also increased the powers of the president vis-à-vis Congress, giving the president considerably more leeway to pursue foreign-policy objectives with little congressional interference. Too often, the dominance of the president in American foreign affairs is assumed, but a careful review of the presidency during the early acquisition of overseas territories reveals a much weaker executive. The president’s powers grew as the colonial bureaucrats charged with managing the overseas colonies began to augment the capacity of the nascent American foreign-policy state by monopolizing information about the colonies and, through their relationship with American banks, finding ways to achieve foreign-policy objectives with little interference from Congress (Moore Reference Moore2011). By exploring the politics of territorial governance, the theoretical literature on the president’s ability to act unilaterally in foreign affairs can be evaluated in its proper historical context (Kriner Reference Kriner2010). A close examination of presidential powers in this age of imperial expansion, then, forces us to consider how the presidency became so dominant, rather than assuming it as a constant.

AMERICAN RACISM AND TERRITORIAL POLITICS

The decisive role that race played in institutional development and public policy has always been a central element of research and teaching in APD. As Smith (Reference Smith1997) argued, American history is filled with legal decisions and policies that were grounded in an ascriptive tradition of white supremacy. Indeed, some of the most important scholarship in the field explored how American institutions and policy design contribute to the persistence of racial and economic disparities in the United States (Gottschalk Reference Gottschalk2006; Lieberman Reference Lieberman2001; Mettler Reference Mettler1998).

Few examples illustrate more clearly the corrosive effects of American ascriptivism than the quasicolonial status of overseas territories under the Constitution. Their existence as domestic dependent nations leaves the territories subject to the authority of Congress and their residents unable to participate fully in the American political process. In many cases, territorial laws and institutions were informed by racist ideas and designed to enforce racial hierarchies through the “segregated state” (King and Lieberman Reference King, Lieberman, Jacobs and King2009). In this way, a critical evaluation of overseas territories provides clear examples of how illiberal and antidemocratic policies are enshrined in constitutional law.

An effective place to begin is a review of the Insular Cases, which determined the status of overseas territories under the Constitution. Even sophisticated students of American politics often are shocked to learn that the Constitution does not apply ex proprio vigore to overseas US territories, which remain “foreign in a domestic sense” (Downes v. Bidwell 1901). As students work through the Supreme Court’s attempts in these decisions to justify withholding constitutional protections to territorial residents, they observe how liberal principles came into conflict with equally powerful fears of nonwhite populations. The clear racist intent of these decisions is further contextualized by the grotesque caricatures of Latinos and Asians that filled newspapers during this period (Hunt Reference Hunt1987).

Of course, the racism enshrined in the Insular Cases has not prevented them from providing the constitutional doctrines that govern US territories. In the recent case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016), a strong majority of the Court determined that Puerto Rico was not a sovereign entity and that it still derives its power from the federal government. Understanding this process presents opportunities to probe how race continues to shape constitutional law more than a century later.

The complex role of race in US political development can be further illustrated through a careful review of the politics of territorial acquisition, in which race was used to justify imperialism and as an argument against it. Although it is true that American beliefs in the superiority of Anglo-American culture and values may have encouraged expansion, racist fears about the incorporation of nonwhite territories such as Hawai‘i and Puerto Rico into the United States left them in a liminal state (Love Reference Love2004). As islands with small Anglo-American populations, both were considered unfit for the state-directed process of white settlement and light territorial governance that ruled expansion over the North American continent. Hawai‘i eventually became a state; however, for much of its territorial period, Native Hawaiians, Japanese, Filipinos, and Chinese suffered under a white-led oligarchy that controlled territorial politics through discriminatory policies with the willing assistance of the metropolitan American state (Fuchs Reference Fuchs1961). The status of these territorial residents can be usefully compared to the regimes of racial exclusion—which were supported by equally racist Court decisions—in the Jim Crow South (Mickey Reference Mickey2015).

This new approach also highlights the importance of studying politics historically and provides clear examples of key concepts such as path dependency. Tracing the unique circumstances that led to the acquisition of individual territories demonstrates how different initial conditions contributed to divergent outcomes over time. In many cases, the institutions of territorial administration were designed to reflect particular racial understandings of the people under American rule (Go Reference Go2008, Reference Go2011). In Hawai‘i and Puerto Rico, for example, initial judgments about each territory’s fitness for statehood put them on dramatically different paths that eventually led one to be admitted as a state while the other remains in a permanent quasicolonial relationship with the mainland. In this way, a close look at territorial politics shows how policies that were adopted more than a century ago continue to inform the confusing and often incoherent set of policies that govern overseas US territories today.

UNEVEN DEMOCRATIZATON: SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP IN THE TERRITORIES

A third topic connects the uneven and incomplete democratization of the American polity with the overseas US territories. Today, these include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Historically, they included the current State of Hawai‘i; the Philippines; and the former United Nations Trust Territories of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Each former and current US territory is (or was) ruled from afar by Congress, and none has (or had) full representation at the federal level (Burnett and Marshall Reference Burnett and Marshall2001; Levinson and Sparrow Reference Levinson and Sparrow2005). As the current treatment of territorial residents demonstrates, this uneven status is not simply a matter of historical interest. These territories continue to have no voting representation in Congress, which leaves them at the mercy of representatives in Washington who know little—and often care less—about the unique policy challenges of these dependent nations.

The fact that fundamental tenets of the Constitution do not apply to the territories more than a century after their acquisition clearly illustrates how the legacy of the American ascriptive tradition still informs our laws. Although the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States, the federal courts affirmed that residents of American Samoa are merely American “nationals” rather than full citizens (Tuaua v. United States 2015). How can this second-class citizenship continue to be justified? Raising this question in the classroom forces students to consider other examples of undemocratic practices that continue to plague the United States.

Along with clear examples of unequal representation, US territories provide numerous instances of how the American state has abused its power over populations that lack political power. The Micronesian states that comprised the Trust Territories of the Pacific, which were controlled by the United States from 1947 to 1986, provide a particularly apt illustration of this process. The Marshall Islands were the site of the most devastating nuclear-weapons tests during the Cold War, rendering some islands uninhabitable and contributing to extreme health problems among their residents (Denoon et al. Reference Denoon, Firth, Linnekin, Meleisea and Nero1997). The Marshallese were supposed to receive substantial economic support, but they were largely treated to a policy of open neglect by Washington that left the islands’ economy depressed and its infrastructure in ruins (Dorrance Reference Dorrance1992).

Although the Trust Territories were granted independence, the remaining overseas US territories are still denied essential rights to self-govern or to participate fully in the American constitutional system. Puerto Rico’s current debt crisis provides a timely example of the effects of the ambiguous status of overseas US territories. On a practical level, Puerto Rico’s unique status as a commonwealth—a relationship that some refer to as the world’s oldest colony—means that it cannot seek relief in federal bankruptcy court. However, it also is ineligible for aid or debt restructuring from the International Monetary Fund because it is not a sovereign nation (Liptak and Walsh Reference Liptak and Walsh2016; Trías Monge Reference Trías Monge1997). Unlike US states, Puerto Rico’s limited sovereignty and lack of federal representation means that it remains at the mercy of Congress. This catastrophe shows the long-term effects of decisions made more than a century ago under the Foraker Act, and it illustrates how the racism of the early twentieth century affects the lives of territorial residents today.

Puerto Rico’s unique status under the Constitution also raises new questions about the nature of federalism and sovereignty (Burnett and Marshall Reference Burnett and Marshall2001). Could Puerto Rico benefit from an enhanced commonwealth status, whereby it would be given more sovereignty than a state but still remain a part of the United States? Is it possible for Puerto Rico to become an independent nation but retain US citizenship for its residents? Raising these questions reveals the layered nature of institutional reform and the complexity of shifts in governance structures. The institutions and case law that govern the US territories illustrate the durability of governing authority and show how new institutions are built on top of older institutions—even those that were designed to maintain racial hierarchies (Orren and Skowronek Reference Orren and Skowronek2004).

BRINGING THE WORLD BACK IN

APD is rarely studied with much attention to the international pressures that influenced the development of the United States “from the outside in” (Gourevitch Reference Gourevitch1978; Katznelson and Shefter 2004; Sparrow Reference Sparrow1996). Using overseas US territories as an organizing theme remedies this persistent problem. This new teaching agenda places American development in its international historical context. In this way, instructors can connect the course material to some of the best recent work among political historians who embrace a more cosmopolitan approach to US history (Sparrow Reference Sparrow2013).

The rich scholarly debate about the importance of world markets in motivating the acquisition of overseas US territories is an effective way to introduce these issues. Many students find particularly provocative the arguments of Williams (Reference Williams1959) and LaFeber (Reference LaFeber1963), who claimed that much of American foreign policy can be explained by a relentless quest for new markets. Indeed, the need to secure a global trading network was a chief justification for the acquisition of overseas US territories including Hawai‘i and American Samoa (Pletcher Reference Pletcher2001). Although the role of trade and tariffs in shaping US development often is emphasized in undergraduate courses, focusing on overseas US territories invites students to consider how commercial pressures also contributed to territorial expansion.

The role that international strategic pressures played in the development of American institutions and state capacity is another topic not often discussed in APD courses. As with trade, however, overseas colonies provide an excellent source of material to introduce the importance of threats (whether real or perceived) to US political development. Although there are numerous cases that could be considered, one of the clearest historical examples is the decision to acquire the US Virgin Islands from Denmark during World War I to protect the approaches to the Panama Canal (Boyer Reference Boyer2010). Today, of course, the US territories continue to play an essential role in projecting American power throughout the world. Hawai‘i is the headquarters of the US Pacific Fleet and Guam provides a crucial base to project American military power throughout Asia (Johnson Reference Johnson2004).