How feasible would it be for Hawaii to fall into British hands at any time after the American Civil War? I assume at some point American influence would be too strong, but was this the case in the 1860's or 70's?
British Hawaii Post-Civil War
- Thread starter Doctor Evulz
- Start date
It was quite possible. There was a tipping point - I'm not sure exactly when you'd put it down as but probably by around the 1875 treaty with the USA - when US interests were just too deeply entrenched, but the British had been trading with the Hawaiians first, and had their own interests in Hawaii, and while I don't think you'd ever see a coup d'etat in favour of Britain (excluding the one which actually happened in 1843, which the British themselves repudiated when they found out about it) you could well see the British turn Hawai'i into a proper Protectorate state by the 1890s if US interest could somehow be dialled down. I'm not sure of the best way of doing that, but I'm sure one of a number of minor changes would work, such as having some dispute between the Americans and the natives which the Americans specifically do not win, or something which affects the local industry and makes a load of US businessmen leave.
Thing is, you're probably only ever looking at Hawai'i being a Protectorate, along the lines of the UAE. In other words, it would likely remain a state with little permanent European settlement, run by the Hawaiians, and which goes its own way and declares independence as an English-speaking (partly) and UK-aligned state but with little desire to cling too tightly to the mother country. The British influence would be strong enough to ensure that the Americans didn't try anything, but I don't think you're ever looking at Hawai'i being an actual colony.
Thing is, you're probably only ever looking at Hawai'i being a Protectorate, along the lines of the UAE. In other words, it would likely remain a state with little permanent European settlement, run by the Hawaiians, and which goes its own way and declares independence as an English-speaking (partly) and UK-aligned state but with little desire to cling too tightly to the mother country. The British influence would be strong enough to ensure that the Americans didn't try anything, but I don't think you're ever looking at Hawai'i being an actual colony.
unprincipled peter
Donor
could never really figure out why britain didn't grab the islands, or the US west coast for that matter. At a time when Britain ruled the world, they just completely gave up on a significant section of it. Hawaii was ripe for the taking. they just said, ok, it's yours. Britain completely walked away from that part of the world, without getting anything in return.
Hawaii was in the middle of nowhere and densely populated. It wouldn't be easy to conquer and there was no reason to since the Hawaiian Kings were willing to trade.
unprincipled peter
Donor
and yet the americans, who were not known for any sort of colonial prowess, took the islands with ease.
It wasn't like that. Foreigners had been flooding the islands for a long time and the Queen was afraid that the identity of the islands was changing. The foreigners afraid that she would take measures against them, staged a coup. They later applied to join the U.S.
The British didn't really like pulling the rug from under the feet of those who actually favoured them. When local magnates and Kings willingly entered into relationships with the UK, the British response was generally to place a Resident there, who acted as the official contact between the two governments and told the local ruler what to do in respect of foreign policy, and then largely let the locals get on with it. It was only when they sniffed out an area for expanding trade and the locals wanted nothing to do with them that relations got tense and things went south. Consequently, since the Hawaiians were very friendly to the British - heck, they voluntarily adopted the Union flag as their own flag before uppity American traders forced them to canton it with American-esque stripes to help the Americans feel more important there - the British in return simply let them be.
Then, when the Americans started moving in in force they allowed them to do so as it wasn't in their best interests to resist it. Contrary to popular beliefs, Parliament had always been very pro-American, seeing America as a place where British merchants could make a killing on trade and essentially a country where any money made through trade could be redirected to Bristol through the symbiotic relationship the American economy had with the British for many decades. In other words, any place the Americans decided to control trade in was a place where the British controlled trade - they simply waited for the products or the profits to make it to the east coast, then watched as the surplus wealth went into British traders' pockets. This meant that, so long as the Americans weren't trying to butt into markets where they weren't welcome - the Old World, basically - the British were frequently content to just let Americans do what they wanted to. Hence the British made no attempt to stop the Americans from securing their domination of Hawai'i. It was, after all, preferable to seeing the French or Russians try to steal it away from British hands when the British weren't looking...
Then, when the Americans started moving in in force they allowed them to do so as it wasn't in their best interests to resist it. Contrary to popular beliefs, Parliament had always been very pro-American, seeing America as a place where British merchants could make a killing on trade and essentially a country where any money made through trade could be redirected to Bristol through the symbiotic relationship the American economy had with the British for many decades. In other words, any place the Americans decided to control trade in was a place where the British controlled trade - they simply waited for the products or the profits to make it to the east coast, then watched as the surplus wealth went into British traders' pockets. This meant that, so long as the Americans weren't trying to butt into markets where they weren't welcome - the Old World, basically - the British were frequently content to just let Americans do what they wanted to. Hence the British made no attempt to stop the Americans from securing their domination of Hawai'i. It was, after all, preferable to seeing the French or Russians try to steal it away from British hands when the British weren't looking...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Absolutely not. Kamehameha the Great adopted the flag as representing connections with both the British and the Americans - he wasn't pressured by any 'uppity American traders'. The eight stripes on the flag represent the eight islands of the Kingdom.
Huh, fair enough. Seems you're right, my bad. In fairness, I haven't really looked into Hawai'i in any detail at all for a few years, but I was absolutely certain that I read somewhere that the flag was only changed because Americans objected to it. But I can't find any sources which back this at all, so I must've somehow just got the whole story totally confused. Sorry about that.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Don't worry about it. That you know this much is pretty good.
The only likely POD I can see for increased British presence in Hawaii post-ACW I can think of would have been the election of Queen Emma rather than Kalakaua to the throne.
Did King Lunalilo prefer Queen Emma as his successor or not? I know she claimed he did during the election. Could he have announced it before he died, bypassing the election altogether?
If he did, then yes, the elections would not have happened.
It is, however, belived that Lunalilo wanted the The next ruler to be elected.
Democratic principle and all.