Kingdom of Hawaii

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

One of the last Hawaiian kings was angling to form a small "Polynesian Empire" in the Pacific-- Kalakaua, I think-- which involved claiming Tonga or Samoa, I forget which. If he had managed to succeed in that project, and might well have been able to pull off a Belgian Congo-like diplomatic coup considering all the emerging conflicting claims, that would've been a key step in securing Hawaiian independence. Scoring that territory would've secured greater relations with the Western powers, and Western relations and recognitions was key to survival.

That was Kalakaua and Samoa.
it's ambitions, but to keep it open we would have to get rid of the Bayonet Constitution.

Funny how everyone always assume the entire chain of islands being possessed by a single colonial power; I don’t think I’ve seen a thread that proposed them divided up amongst various powers.

I think to do that, we would need a POD dealing with Kamehameha The Great.
Killing him would Definitely be a blow to Unification, the Big Island is already divided up into Multiple Kingdoms, The Ali'i Of Maui and Oahu were going through a civil War, and Kauai and Ni'ihau are isolated enough to be swayed.

Not certain about a POD after Kamehameha Unifies the Islands. Like I said a More Competent Person than Schäffer and the Tzar Giving a Damn about Hawaii is probably needed.

I thought about this Idea Before though in another thread.
I think we ended up with Russian Kauai and Ni'ihau, British Oahu French Maui, American Big Island and German Molokai.

IIRC the British and the French had an agreement that neither would try and claim the islands since they didn't want to see the other get them and were useful enough as a neutral port. If you want to stop the coup and the islands later going to the US perhaps instead of just an agreement not to claim them the British and French declare the islands to be a joint protectorate? They did it with the Hew Hebrides apparently. Allows the locals to run things internally whilst the Anglo-French protectors take care of foreign relations and defence issues.

The Problem is the Missionaries. Even if the British and French Declare it as a Joint Protectorate, the descendants of the Missionaries will be trouble.

Not to mention despite the Agreement, there were Europeans involved in Both the Bayonet Constitution and Overthrow.

Besides, aren't the islands essentially divided into a Francophone and Anglophone half?

 

[Cook]

the British and French declare the islands to be a joint protectorate? They did it with the Hew Hebrides apparently.

They initially colonised separate areas of the Island chain. The union came about roughly at the time of the Entente Cordial. Strangely, instead of it being an opportunity to join the two separate administrations, it looks like they just kept the previous separate administrations and added an additional joint administration over the top; which would have made the New Hebrides islands, with a population of under 100,000 at the time, one of the most over governed places on Earth!

The squabbling over who was to have the Samoan Islands is another interesting example.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would consider it entirely possible that, provided there were no internal strife, that the Kingdom of Hawaii could continued to exist to this day. Economically it will fall in the American sphere, but if it had been able to maintain its independence thru to the turn of the century, just eight years, things could have gone quite differently.

An agreement of some sorts regarding the use of Pearl Harbor is in the cards, probably leased to the US by a reciprocity treaty allowing Hawaiian goods into the US tariff free.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to deal a blow to the US Navy and because the fleet was there. The Japanese had no ability to project power beyond their sphere in the Far East.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

I would consider it entirely possible that, provided there were no internal strife, that the Kingdom of Hawaii could continued to exist to this day. Economically it will fall in the American sphere, but if it had been able to maintain its independence thru to the turn of the century, just eight years, things could have gone quite differently.

An agreement of some sorts regarding the use of Pearl Harbor is in the cards, probably leased to the US by a reciprocity treaty allowing Hawaiian goods into the US tariff free.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to deal a blow to the US Navy and because the fleet was there. The Japanese had no ability to project power beyond their sphere in the Far East.

the problem is, of course, getting rid or at least controlling the issues that already are affecting it.

 

[Wendell]

The Hawaiian monarchy's best chance for survival is British protection. Make the country a protectorate at some point before the end of the monarchy, and you guarantee that the U.S. won't intervene militarily. Of course, even then, the Kingdom would likely end up rather more like modern Fiji than modern Tonga.

 

[David S Poepoe]

the problem is, of course, getting rid or at least controlling the issues that already are affecting it.

No doubt about it. I'm fairly well read in Hawaii history and have even formally studied it briefly at the University of Hawaii - not to mention my close interactions with the Hawaiian Royal Orders and even had lunch with a member of the Royal Family.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Hawaii could be a Pacific Cuba, with its independence guaranteed by the US and in exchange the US could lease a naval base and have economic dominance.

This seems very possible.

And with this senerio, a rising Japan, clashing with America leading to a Pacific War is still a very realistic outcome.

Later on such a base could lead to huge leasing fees.

Mmm, and soviet diplomatic overtures, and/or funding of anti-american groups...

A independant Hawaii, with American protection, would probably have limited Japanese/Asian immigration, leading to a very differant demographics.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Funny how everyone always assume the entire chain of islands being possessed by a single colonial power; I don’t think I’ve seen a thread that proposed them divided up amongst various powers.

THat would be interesting.

 

[Cináed]

Hawaii's best bet is to play Japan and America off against eachother. A marital union with the Japanese Imperial House secures a certain level of Japanese interest in the country, while the lease of Pearl Harbour ensures that the US won't tolerate overt Japanese interference in Hawaiian affairs.

With American and Japanese interest noted, I doubt there is any real reason for Britain or France to get involved unless the Hawaiians really bugger up.

A more intimidating Hawaiian military would discourage the series of coups that led, IOTL, to Hawaii being annexed by the USA as a white-ruled republic. If Kalakaua only had spent more on armies, and less on palaces...

The result is that Hawaii today would be predominantly Polynesian, with significant white and Asian minorities, a continuing royal line, and possibly some sort of protectorate treaty with the United States.

 

[zoomar]

Another question is, even if Hawai'i somehow retained its independence to the present day, would it remain a monarchy? Hawai'i, given its strategic location and the fact that its monarchs were willing to grant land and trade concessions to EuroAmerican planters for immediate gain, would enventually be faced with radically changing demographics. Also, to maintain independence in the face of Russian, US, British, French, and later Japanese and German pressure, it is easly to imagine the Hawai'ian royal famility being completely coopted by whichever imperial power that determined it must have sole access to that wonderful fleet anchorage with all those pearly oysters in it. The end result might be an "independent" kingdom detested by nationalists and ripe for revolution - either by natives to preserve traditions or by large and powerful immigrant elites to prevent a nativist revival and create a republic.

My guess is that, even if Hawai'i statyed independent, the Kingdom of Hawai'i probably wouldn't weather all the anti-monarchist silliness popping up all over the world in the early-mid 20th century

 

[MadMc]

I asked the same question about a year ago, here's some thoughts that were brought up https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=148898

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Hawaii's best bet is to play Japan and America off against eachother. A marital union with the Japanese Imperial House secures a certain level of Japanese interest in the country, while the lease of Pearl Harbour ensures that the US won't tolerate overt Japanese interference in Hawaiian affairs.

the Martial union is Unlikely to say the least.
Besides, Kalakaua's proposal was to the Shinnoke Branch, not the Main line.

A more intimidating Hawaiian military would discourage the series of coups that led, IOTL, to Hawaii being annexed by the USA as a white-ruled republic. If Kalakaua only had spent more on armies, and less on palaces...

that still ignores the Bayonet Constitution, which is what Weakened the King. A Strong Military isn't Going to discourage the Community of Safety by much.
we have to weaken or get rid of them.

 

[David S Poepoe]

A independant Hawaii, with American protection, would probably have limited Japanese/Asian immigration, leading to a very differant demographics.

The main industry of Hawaii, sugar, is relies upon cheap labor which did lead to the cultural mix of the islands. The Portugese were relatively late arrivals, but its likely that the Japanese and Chinese influx will continue. An independent Hawaii will set its own foreign relations to a degree.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Another question is, even if Hawai'i somehow retained its independence to the present day, would it remain a monarchy? Hawai'i, given its strategic location and the fact that its monarchs were willing to grant land and trade concessions to EuroAmerican planters for immediate gain, would enventually be faced with radically changing demographics. Also, to maintain independence in the face of Russian, US, British, French, and later Japanese and German pressure, it is easly to imagine the Hawai'ian royal famility being completely coopted by whichever imperial power that determined it must have sole access to that wonderful fleet anchorage with all those pearly oysters in it. The end result might be an "independent" kingdom detested by nationalists and ripe for revolution - either by natives to preserve traditions or by large and powerful immigrant elites to prevent a nativist revival and create a republic.

My guess is that, even if Hawai'i statyed independent, the Kingdom of Hawai'i probably wouldn't weather all the anti-monarchist silliness popping up all over the world in the early-mid 20th century

There practicaly no pressure that the Russians, French, Japanese or Germans can put on Hawaii post-1893. The Pacific is a relative backwater of events into the 20th century. Most of the conflicts are entirely in the Far East.

 

[Koenig von Poposia]

No doubt about it. I'm fairly well read in Hawaii history and have even formally studied it briefly at the University of Hawaii - not to mention my close interactions with the Hawaiian Royal Orders and even had lunch with a member of the Royal Family.

As someone who has close dealings with Indian Reservation affairs on a daily basis, I have often wondered if Native Hawaiians might not be granted recognition of their lost sovereignty on the same basis as Native American tribes, such as the Northern Arapaho. I'm unfamiliar with how much sovereignty the American government already extends to Native Hawaiians but I wonder if even the monarchy couldn't be restored legally under such conditions. I know here where I live, the Northern Arapahos don't even talk to the state of Wyoming. Everything is done sovereign nation to sovereign nation with only the Federal government involved. Wouldn't it be wild if Quentin Kūhiō Kawānanakoa, Prince of Hawaii (Kawānanakoa IV of Hawaiʻi) (born 1961), moved into Iolani Palace as head of a new Federally recognized sovereign Native Hawaiians organization?

 

[David S Poepoe]

As someone who has close dealings with Indian Reservation affairs on a daily basis, I have often wondered if Native Hawaiians might not be granted recognition of their lost sovereignty on the same basis as Native American tribes, such as the Northern Arapaho. I'm unfamiliar with how much sovereignty the American government already extends to Native Hawaiians but I wonder if even the monarchy couldn't be restored legally under such conditions. I know here where I live, the Northern Arapahos don't even talk to the state of Wyoming. Everything is done sovereign nation to sovereign nation with only the Federal government involved. Wouldn't it be wild if Quentin Kūhiō Kawānanakoa, Prince of Hawaii (Kawānanakoa IV of Hawaiʻi) (born 1961), moved into Iolani Palace as head of a new Federally recognized sovereign Native Hawaiians organization?

Quentin and his wife are very nice people. I did have lunch with Quentin at Columbia Inn on Kapiolani Blvd. about thirty years ago. The palace would only be used for ceremonial events it is a historical building and really does not many conveniences that most people will like.

Sovereignty to any degree is not extended to the Hawaiians in the same fashion as Native American Indians. As far as I know institutions that have been establish to help Hawaiians are continually under attack in the courts.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

The main industry of Hawaii, sugar, is relies upon cheap labor which did lead to the cultural mix of the islands. The Portugese were relatively late arrivals, but its likely that the Japanese and Chinese influx will continue. An independent Hawaii will set its own foreign relations to a degree.

But if we are considering a stronger monarchy, which has more ability to resist foriegn business interests, than the sugar industry might be denied the import of cheap labour it wants.

Hell, a Hawaiian monarchy might want to weaken the sugar industry anyway.

 

[Koenig von Poposia]

Quentin and his wife are very nice people. I did have lunch with Quentin at Columbia Inn on Kapiolani Blvd. about thirty years ago. The palace would only be used for ceremonial events it is a historical building and really does not many conveniences that most people will like.

Sovereignty to any degree is not extended to the Hawaiians in the same fashion as Native American Indians. As far as I know institutions that have been establish to help Hawaiians are continually under attack in the courts.

Has having a president from Hawaii helped at all?

 

[Wendell]

As someone who has close dealings with Indian Reservation affairs on a daily basis, I have often wondered if Native Hawaiians might not be granted recognition of their lost sovereignty on the same basis as Native American tribes, such as the Northern Arapaho. I'm unfamiliar with how much sovereignty the American government already extends to Native Hawaiians but I wonder if even the monarchy couldn't be restored legally under such conditions. I know here where I live, the Northern Arapahos don't even talk to the state of Wyoming. Everything is done sovereign nation to sovereign nation with only the Federal government involved. Wouldn't it be wild if Quentin Kūhiō Kawānanakoa, Prince of Hawaii (Kawānanakoa IV of Hawaiʻi) (born 1961), moved into Iolani Palace as head of a new Federally recognized sovereign Native Hawaiians organization?

There was legislation on this very question in the last Congress. I felt then and maintain now that the proposal essentially undermines Hawaiian statehood and effectively rewrites history.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Has having a president from Hawaii helped at all?

I don't believe it has, tho at least alot of people get some word about it whenever he goes back there on vacation. I'm sure traffic is terrible over there also when he visits.