WI Hawaiian Monarchy not overthrown...

Eckener · Oct 1, 2009

Not sure if this has been discussed yet or not,

is there any way that the Kingdom of Hawaii could have remained independent?

I would see some senario where the monarchs are more favorable to the non-native populations, and that the US makes more agreeable trade relations regarding the import of sugar, and also backs the monarchy.

Any thoughts?

Aranfan · Oct 1, 2009

Hawaii is very important to America, because it can be easily used as a hopping off point to attack the West Coast. That's why were were so eager to grab it OTL.

Eckener · Oct 1, 2009

True..what if an agreement were arranged to allow the establishment of military bases in Hawaii without it being annexed? Pearl Harbor given to America, and the kingdom becomes a close protectorate or something?

Aranfan · Oct 1, 2009

Eckener said:
True..what if an agreement were arranged to allow the establishment of military bases in Hawaii without it being annexed? Pearl Harbor given to America, and the kingdom becomes a close protectorate or something?

That would probably be doable.

The Kiat · Oct 1, 2009

Maybe if Hawaii became a British Protectorate. But even then, the U.S. of A. is going to be eyeing Pearl Harbor.

lothaw · Oct 1, 2009

The Kiat said:
Maybe if Hawaii became a British Protectorate. But even then, the U.S. of A. is going to be eyeing Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, only scenario I can think of. Someone's going to grab it just for the strategic value of the Island. Britain would be likely to let them govern themselves so long as they don't mess with the Royal Navy's base there.

Onyx · Oct 1, 2009

Wouldn't Hawaii be like a Protectorate to the US, if Grover Cleveland wins the next elections (But lost to McKinley, who wanted Hawaii under US control)

I would see Hawaii as an ally to the US if Cleveland actually helps the Queen of Hawaii if he just sends troops to remove Admiral Dole (Is that his name)

Eckener · Oct 1, 2009

Yes, Dole and other American business men toppled the Hawaiian Queen, set up a 'republic', and asked for annexation, which Cleavland wouldn't accept, but also did not take action against.

Seldrin · Oct 1, 2009

You know I was just about to make a thread with the same topic... I think that Hawaii could have retained its monarchy through a couple of different means.
The first chronologically would be Hawaii becoming and remaining a British protectorate until at least the late 19th century, this would probably result in Hawaii being somewhat akin to Tonga, that's if it isn't annexed through some other means e.g the war of 1812
The second and perhaps most plausible way in the short term for Hawaii to retain the monarchy would be if McKinley isn't elected, if he isn't elected, no tariff, no Tariff means no attempt to change the constitution, if the constitution isn't changed, the monarchy will retain power. I had a third reason but I forgot it, so I'll post it up later.

lothaw · Oct 1, 2009

Eckener said:
Yes, Dole and other American business men toppled the Hawaiian Queen, set up a 'republic', and asked for annexation, which Cleavland wouldn't accept, but also did not take action against.

Taking action against a group of US citizens in favor of the Hawaaiians, while the right thing, would've been political suicide I think.

Eckener · Oct 2, 2009

lothaw said:
Taking action against a group of US citizens in favor of the Hawaaiians, while the right thing, would've been political suicide I think.

Very true, making a British Protectorate more plausible. Although, if we go with a PoD that has Cleaveland reelected...it would be his last term anyway (even though he could run again, precedent dictates that he wouldn't run again for a third term). It may not be as 'suicidial' as you think. Especially if the US got a military base at Pearl out of the deal, action against a few 'renegades' might be overlooked.

David S Poepoe · Oct 2, 2009

Daedulus said:
I would see Hawaii as an ally to the US if Cleveland actually helps the Queen of Hawaii if he just sends troops to remove Admiral Dole (Is that his name)

Admiral Dole? Did he command the pineapple fleet, since there was a Pineapple Air Force?

You are thinking about Sanford Dole.

David S Poepoe · Oct 2, 2009

Eckener said:
Yes, Dole and other American business men toppled the Hawaiian Queen, set up a 'republic', and asked for annexation, which Cleavland wouldn't accept, but also did not take action against.

You've got things backwards. Following the overthrow Dole and other members of the Committee for Public Safety established a Provisional Government which appealed for annexation and when they were refused by Cleveland then they establish the Republic.

David S Poepoe · Oct 2, 2009

Seldrin said:
The second and perhaps most plausible way in the short term for Hawaii to retain the monarchy would be if McKinley isn't elected, if he isn't elected, no tariff, no Tariff means no attempt to change the constitution, if the constitution isn't changed, the monarchy will retain power. I had a third reason but I forgot it, so I'll post it up later.

Your idea isn't going to work exactly how you have it down. It would be more correct in that no Tariff means no drive for annexation by the pro-US businessmen. The tariff has nothing to do with the constitution. Liliuokalani will still try to change the constitution (the infamous 'Bayonet' Constitution) since it disenfranchises most of the native population. At the time power remains more with the Cabinet than the monarch.

Eckener · Oct 2, 2009

If I'm not mistaken, the tarrif was in place prior to the rebellion, so before Cleaveland left office. If the sentiment for annexation hadn't existed, would the queen have been able to change the constitution of hawaii effectively?

David S Poepoe · Oct 2, 2009

Eckener said:
If I'm not mistaken, the tarrif was in place prior to the rebellion, so before Cleaveland left office. If the sentiment for annexation hadn't existed, would the queen have been able to change the constitution of hawaii effectively?

No, the McKinley Tariff was passed during Harrison's Administration in 1890.

More than likely the Queen would have still run into opposition since her constitutional reforms directly challenged the power of the businessmen. They would probably still appeal to US Minister Stevens, who was pro-annexationalist, for US intervention. I can't remember when Stevens had first been appointed to Hawaii, but he was always making problems. The thing to do would be for the Hawaiian Government to have forced Stevens' recall and then allowed, come 1893, the Sheriff to have arrested the revolutionaries.

Eckener · Oct 2, 2009

So, of you went with a British protectorate...how exactly would you make that work (as opposed to having the British just take over...some sort of Colony/Dominion of Hawaii, or, God forbid, the Sandwich Isles).

And as for the constitution...any way to appease the businessmen?

Eckener · Oct 2, 2009

Somehing else just occured to me as well...WI during the overthrow of the kingdom, the queen refuses to abdicate and I'd killed, leading to a native uprising that kills Dole.

David S Poepoe · Oct 2, 2009

Eckener said:
Somehing else just occured to me as well...WI during the overthrow of the kingdom, the queen refuses to abdicate and I'd killed, leading to a native uprising that kills Dole.

HM Queen Liliuokalani did not abdicate until 1895.

Spitfiremk1 · Oct 2, 2009

Well, i agree that the best chance is Hawaii becoming a British Protectorate, but of course, there would be shitloads of "Advisors" rather like OTL Indian Princely states. However, if tentions with the US are higher than OTL, Britian might want to Annex the Islands directly to prevent any possible dissnet, maybe even transfering soverienty to Canada or Australia?