Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
November 28, 1950
The Daily Alaska Empire
Juneau, Juneau County, Alaska
What is this article about?
Editorial opposes President Truman's push for Alaska and Hawaii statehood, arguing it fails to bolster national defense and would burden Alaska's sparse population with excessive administrative costs, while Hawaii might manage better economically.
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
THE PRESIDENT ENDORSES
STATEHOOD
Mr. Truman's letter to the "lame duck" Congress
urge statehood for Alaska and Hawaii as being vital
to the security of the nation as a whole."
Much as we dislike to take issue with the Presi-
dent of the United States, we are forced to disagree
with him on a point which has been so well refuted
by eminent military and naval leaders. We prefer to
believe that Mr. Truman has been ill advised.
That statehood for Alaska makes for a better de-
fense is a poor argument. The claim that statehood
would strengthen Alaska's defenses—and thus, the
nation's—not supported by fact. No one has under-
taken to show how this political move would serve to
augment Alaska's military strength or render the
Territory less vulnerable to attack.
Political nomenclature does not alter terrain nor
climate: neither does it change the location and serv-
iceability of harbors and airfields. The men who may
on day be called upon to defend Alaska, will be, as
soldiers always are, more concerned with the im-
mediate problems of communications, transportation
and supply than with the political organization of the
area to be defended.
Too, it is likely that in the event of an invasion.
any local government—State or Territory—would be
quickly supplanted by a military government.
The Senators who are to consider the admission
of the Territories to the Union may well give serious
thought to the financing of the fledgling States.
Alaska's 130,000 people will be called upon to
provide the lion's share of the money needed to ad-
minister an area more than a fifth that of the
United States. The tremendous expense involved is
familiar to most Alaskans. The expense of main-
taining roads, harbors, airfields and waterways would
entail a tax burden beyond reasonable limits for a
people whose economy is primarily seasonal.
Hawaii might fare better in this respect, owing
to a dense population and a relatively small area.
Moreover, Hawaii's economy is pretty well developed,
with year round cropping of sugar and pineapple
plus a lucrative tourist industry.
We hope that the Senators will consider the
statehood bills on their respective merits—without
regard to political horsetrading—and with a thought
for the people who will have to pay the bills.
STATEHOOD
Mr. Truman's letter to the "lame duck" Congress
urge statehood for Alaska and Hawaii as being vital
to the security of the nation as a whole."
Much as we dislike to take issue with the Presi-
dent of the United States, we are forced to disagree
with him on a point which has been so well refuted
by eminent military and naval leaders. We prefer to
believe that Mr. Truman has been ill advised.
That statehood for Alaska makes for a better de-
fense is a poor argument. The claim that statehood
would strengthen Alaska's defenses—and thus, the
nation's—not supported by fact. No one has under-
taken to show how this political move would serve to
augment Alaska's military strength or render the
Territory less vulnerable to attack.
Political nomenclature does not alter terrain nor
climate: neither does it change the location and serv-
iceability of harbors and airfields. The men who may
on day be called upon to defend Alaska, will be, as
soldiers always are, more concerned with the im-
mediate problems of communications, transportation
and supply than with the political organization of the
area to be defended.
Too, it is likely that in the event of an invasion.
any local government—State or Territory—would be
quickly supplanted by a military government.
The Senators who are to consider the admission
of the Territories to the Union may well give serious
thought to the financing of the fledgling States.
Alaska's 130,000 people will be called upon to
provide the lion's share of the money needed to ad-
minister an area more than a fifth that of the
United States. The tremendous expense involved is
familiar to most Alaskans. The expense of main-
taining roads, harbors, airfields and waterways would
entail a tax burden beyond reasonable limits for a
people whose economy is primarily seasonal.
Hawaii might fare better in this respect, owing
to a dense population and a relatively small area.
Moreover, Hawaii's economy is pretty well developed,
with year round cropping of sugar and pineapple
plus a lucrative tourist industry.
We hope that the Senators will consider the
statehood bills on their respective merits—without
regard to political horsetrading—and with a thought
for the people who will have to pay the bills.
What sub-type of article is it?
Constitutional
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Statehood
Alaska
Hawaii
Defense
Financing
Truman
Territories
What entities or persons were involved?
President Truman
Congress
Senators
Alaska
Hawaii
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Opposition To Statehood For Alaska And Hawaii
Stance / Tone
Disagreement With Presidential Endorsement
Key Figures
President Truman
Congress
Senators
Alaska
Hawaii
Key Arguments
Statehood Does Not Enhance Alaska's Defenses Or National Security
Political Status Change Does Not Affect Terrain, Climate, Or Military Infrastructure
Soldiers Focus On Logistics Over Political Organization
Local Governments Would Be Replaced By Military In Invasion
Alaska's Small Population Cannot Afford State Administration Costs
Hawaii's Denser Population And Economy Better Suited For Statehood
Consider Bills On Merits Without Political Trading