Hawaii questions
- Thread starter Uruk
- Start date
The overthrow?
Not likely.
I think it would require more British Presence in the country to start with.
which means an earlier POD, and more butterflies.
Given that the British did establish a Provisional Government in 1843, there's a possibility.
and Earlier POD dealing with the Scheffer affair also has some potential.
Bits and pieces.
Don't expect me to have a conversation or write though.
David S Poepoe is more knowledgeable than I am, though.
Have the British tell the US, "No you can not take Hawaii", see Anglo-Franco Proclamation of 1943. As well have the British use Pearl Harbor as a deep water port. That might butterfly the US involvement in Hawaii.
twovultures
Donor
Another alternative is that US electoral politics go a little differently, and the US government refuses to accept the settler's demand for annexation (not likely given historical patterns, but it was possible in the case of Hawaii).
Then, the British are the best placed to step in and make Hawaii a protectorate.
Then, the British are the best placed to step in and make Hawaii a protectorate.
Delta Force
Banned
The Russian Empire actually did have a protectorate in Hawaii. It lasted from 1817 to ~1862 for the island of Kauai and three fortresses were built to defend the island. Hawaii was also occupied by the British for six months in 1843 and by the French for two weeks in 1849.
1815-1817.
Never was official, seeing that Otto von Kotzebue came over to inform Kamehameha I that Schäffer had not informed the Russians of his true intentions, and had gone insane.
The Russian American company did continue to consider The Hawaii option until 1821, but gave up on it.
I don't think giving Russia a Leper Colony is much of reward.
More seriously, Why would they want to?
France and Britian recognized the Provisional Government as the legitimate government 48 hours after the overthrow, and Russia has it's own problems.
the 1887 Bayonet constitution stripped most of the remaining power from the monarch, and gave it to the Americans, Europeans and Local elite, so it's not like there would be some massive change in policy that would affect their presence.
that would require a successful restoration.
and sense the scenario you posted had the French and British turning most of the Kingdom into a puppet, why would they want to restore the constitution that would give power back to the Queen?
Given that the Rebels barely had arms, training, plans, or actual support, doubtful.
It would have to be much better organized, and need something that would appeal to the British, and French.
Besides, with African Colonization in full swing and a growing concern over Germany, why would they care?
My TL "Rubber Revolutionaries, Republicans and a Young Man named Bonaparte" has a situation where Great Britain takes possession of Hawaii in 1878-79. The US gets (from Britain) Midway & Kure Island as a consolation and to try to smooth things over with the USA. Britain will use Pearl Harbor as a naval base. Can't remember what page that I mentioned it though, sorry
. I have large amount of Indian (Gujarati) immigration to the Hawaiian Islands. Best regards Joho. They would revoke the 1887 constition because its easier to handle one queen rather than an ogliarchy not to mention that it was a common policy to increase the power of the local rulers over the populace in most colonies.
Containment of the Germans in the pacific is one reason btw if the Islands are so unattractive why did the US annex them?
Revoking the Bayonet Constitution would take away the voting rights of European and American residents/Resident Aliens, giving those rights back to the asian population, and give near-absolute power back to the Monarchy.
doesn't seem to work in favor of the British.
Please, the Germans are the least likely people to get Hawaii.
because that was the entire Idea behind the overthrow.
the McKinley Act meant that Hawaiian Sugar had lost the advantages the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty gave them, which lead them to economic problems.
coupled with the proposed 1893 constitution which would essentially rid the nation of the Bayonet constitution, the position that many wealthy individuals enjoyed would be lost.
these individuals agreed that US Annexation would get them around the McKinley act, and have the added advantage of getting rid of the Monarchy that threatened their current position.
Following the Spanish-American war, there was a renewed interest in Hawaii, sense the US had to fight in the Philippines and to help with the current US interest in the Pacific.
Getting rid of the Spanish-American War would have some potentially interesting consequences, however.
twovultures
Donor
Revoking the bayonet constitution does not mean returning to the status quo, though. Especially if the British return the monarchy to power, they will be in a very good position to dictate the terms of that return, which would probably involve limitations on the power of the monarchy, the creation of a parliament of some kind (which would probably enfranchise Europeans and Native Hawaiians at the expense of Asians) and amnesty for the American conspirators in so far as it benefits the British.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Just about the same here. I've got access to a Hawaiian-English dictionary and am learning how to play the ukulele. I've got a pretty good knowledge of hapa-haole songs but couldn't carry out a conversation if a hula girl danced in front of me.