Paradise in the Periphery: Martial Law, Occupation and American Empire in Hawaii, 1941-1950

Abstract

This thesis argues that Hawaii’s years under martial law from 1941 to 1944—extended until 1945—should be historiographically understood as a military occupation by situating Hawaii within amongst other occupations, including the French in Algeria, Japan in the Aleutians, the British in Scotland, the Boers in Southern Africa, Russia in Donbas, and Israel in Sinai. This study demonstrates how Hawaii's experience aligns with broader historical patterns of occupation. It contends that occupation is best understood through structural and material realities rather than legal recognition alone. While the military government justified martial law as a wartime necessity, this argument, based on Ex Parte Milligan, was only legally sound in the immediate aftermath of December 7, 1941. However, political rhetoric extended necessity beyond its legal limits, persisting even after the U.S. victory at Midway rendered the justification obsolete. The thesis explores how military occupations avoid classification as such when sovereignty is ambiguous, as seen in Hawaii, the Philippines, and Scotland where territories are framed as internal matters rather than sites of belligerent confrontation. Recognizing Hawaii’s martial law years as an occupation challenges existing scholarship, particularly on statehood, where its influence has been overlooked. Hawaii’s transition from democracy to authoritarian rule under martial law catalyzed a shift in political consciousness, fueling demands for self-determination in response to the suppression of civil liberties and military overreach. This study highlights key acts of resistance, including labor activism, Japanese American veterans' advocacy, and political actors who contested the legal foundations of martial law. In doing so, it advances our understanding of Hawaii’s trajectory toward statehood. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the American Empire and its racialized imperialism by framing Hawaii’s martial law period within the historiography of occupation. In doing so, it not only recontextualizes Hawaii’s path to statehood and complications the discussions of military rule, sovereignty, and U.S. expansionism.