Located roughly a thousand miles southeast of Florida, Puerto Rico, an archipelago in the Caribbean, possesses a convoluted history of colonialism and a unique political standing. Despite being a territory of the United States, and its 3.2 million inhabitants being U.S. citizens, Puerto Rico exists in a liminal space. While subject to U.S. federal laws, residents of Puerto Rico cannot vote in presidential elections and lack full voting representation in the U.S. Congress. This begs the crucial question: why isn’t Puerto Rico a state, like many other territories acquired by the United States? Understanding this requires delving into centuries of history, exploring colonial legacies, and examining the ongoing debate about Puerto Rico’s future.
The Legacy of Spanish Colonialism
The story of Puerto Rico’s complex relationship with the United States begins with Spanish colonization. When Christopher Columbus landed on the western coast of Puerto Rico on November 19, 1493, the island, known as Borikén by the indigenous Taíno people, was swiftly claimed for Spain. Columbus renamed it San Juan Bautista, and for the next four centuries, Puerto Rico was under Spanish rule. This era was marked by significant hardship for the island and its people, characterized by widespread poverty, political repression, and heavy taxation imposed by the Spanish crown.
By the mid-19th century, discontent with Spanish rule had reached a boiling point. Inspired by burgeoning independence movements across Latin America and fueled by economic grievances, Puerto Ricans began to actively seek greater autonomy, if not outright independence. The most significant early uprising occurred in 1868 with the “Grito de Lares” (Cry of Lares). Hundreds of pro-independence Puerto Ricans launched a revolt in the mountain town of Lares, declaring a republic. Although the Spanish military quickly suppressed the rebellion, it served as a pivotal moment, galvanizing the burgeoning national identity of Puerto Ricans and pushing Spain to initiate reforms. National political parties emerged on the island, slavery was abolished in 1873, and Spain started granting Puerto Rico a degree of autonomy in the late 1890s.
However, this brief period of increased self-governance was abruptly curtailed in 1898. The United States declared war on Spain, ostensibly over the issue of Cuban independence. As part of the Spanish-American War, U.S. forces invaded Puerto Rico on July 25, 1898, and occupied the island. The conflict concluded swiftly, and with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in December 1898, Spain ceded Puerto Rico, along with Guam and the Philippines, to the United States. This marked the end of Spanish colonial rule and the beginning of Puerto Rico’s journey as a U.S. territory.
Transition to a U.S. Territory and the Unincorporated Status
Following the Spanish-American War, the United States established a military government to administer Puerto Rico. This military rule persisted until April 12, 1900, when the Foraker Act was passed. This act established a civilian government for the island, but crucially, it designated Puerto Rico as an “unincorporated territory.” This designation is key to understanding Puerto Rico’s current status.
Historically, when the U.S. expanded across the North American continent in the 19th century, newly acquired territories were generally considered to be on a path to statehood. These territories were deemed “incorporated,” implying an intention for eventual integration into the United States as states with equal rights and representation. However, Puerto Rico, along with other overseas possessions acquired at the turn of the 20th century, was treated differently.
Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, a professor of legal history at Columbia Law School, highlights a significant factor in this distinction: racial anxieties. According to Ponsa-Kraus, some American legislators harbored fears about racial mixing if Puerto Rico, with its predominantly non-white population, were to become a state. These prejudiced concerns contributed to the “unincorporated” status, which essentially meant that the U.S. Constitution did not fully apply to Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans were initially denied U.S. citizenship and were subjected to governance under a U.S.-appointed governor, limiting their self-governance.
Despite the limitations imposed by territorial status, pro-independence movements continued to advocate for greater autonomy. In 1917, seeking to quell growing tensions and, importantly, to secure manpower for World War I, the U.S. Congress passed the Jones-Shafroth Act. This act granted U.S. citizenship to most Puerto Ricans. However, this citizenship was not accompanied by full rights. While the Jones Act established a Senate and a Bill of Rights for Puerto Rico, ultimate authority remained with the U.S. President and Congress, who retained the power to veto Puerto Rican laws. Furthermore, the Selective Service Act applied to Puerto Rico, and nearly 20,000 Puerto Rican men served in the U.S. military during World War I, despite not having full political representation.
Further evolution in Puerto Rico’s status occurred in 1950 when the United States permitted Puerto Rico to draft its own constitution. This was contingent on the condition that the constitution did not alter Puerto Rico’s territorial status, maintained a republican form of government, and included a bill of rights. Following a constitutional convention in Puerto Rico and subsequent approval by the U.S. President and Congress, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was established in 1952.
The Ambiguity of “Commonwealth” and “Free Associated State”
The designation of “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” was intended to represent a new, more autonomous relationship with the United States. Many proponents believed it signified a unique political status that was neither statehood, nor independence, nor traditional territory. The idea was that having an elected self-government and a constitution would elevate Puerto Rico beyond a mere colony.
However, constitutional scholars like Ponsa-Kraus argue that the “commonwealth” status is largely symbolic. Because the U.S. Congress retains ultimate power over Puerto Rico’s government, including the ability to override local laws, Puerto Rico remains fundamentally subordinate to the United States. Therefore, despite the term “commonwealth,” it is still considered by many to be a colonial territory in practical terms.
Adding to the confusion, the official Spanish name for Puerto Rico is Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, which translates to “Free Associated State.” In international law, a “free associated state” typically refers to an independent country that has a treaty-based enhanced association with another nation. This Spanish designation is a misnomer, as Puerto Rico is not an independent country. This difference in terminology further complicates the understanding of Puerto Rico’s political identity, both domestically and internationally.
The Future of Puerto Rico’s Status
For decades, Puerto Ricans have grappled with the question of decolonization and self-determination. The debate over Puerto Rico’s future status has largely centered on three options: statehood, enhanced commonwealth status (granting Puerto Rico greater autonomy within its current relationship with the U.S.), or full independence.
According to legal experts like Ponsa-Kraus, the legal pathway to Puerto Rican statehood is relatively straightforward. It would require Puerto Rico to adopt a constitution in anticipation of statehood, Congressional approval of that constitution (potentially with conditions to ensure compatibility with the U.S. federal system), and finally, Congressional legislation admitting Puerto Rico as a state. Similarly, Congress could grant independence to Puerto Rico through a simple act of legislation.
Despite the apparent legal simplicity, the political realities are far more complex. In a non-binding referendum held in November 2020, approximately 53 percent of Puerto Rican voters favored statehood, while 47 percent opposed it. However, voter turnout was only around 55 percent. Proponents of statehood interpreted the results as a clear mandate for statehood, while opponents questioned the legitimacy of the referendum due to its non-binding nature, its promotion primarily by pro-statehood parties, and the fact that it represented the views of just over half of the eligible voters. Furthermore, some within Puerto Rico oppose statehood due to concerns about cultural assimilation into the United States and the potential loss of Puerto Rican identity.
“Legally speaking, it’s pretty simple,” concludes Ponsa-Kraus. “The battle is over trying to convince people to want statehood or to oppose statehood.” Ultimately, the question of why Puerto Rico is not a state boils down to a complex interplay of historical legacies, political considerations, and ongoing debates about identity, representation, and self-determination. The future status of Puerto Rico remains a significant and unresolved issue in the 21st century.
