WI Britain annexes Hawaii?

[Just a Rube]

I think you're going to find issues if the UK has Hawaii, it means they are going to try and be the important guys - and aren't going to let the US take Taiwan if they think they can get there first. It would be an amazing midway between India, Hong Kong, and Hawaii.

Britain is going to be hungry for Taiwan.

It's not like the British weren't important players in China OTL.

Hawaii isn't going to be important enough to seriously change the British calculus; it's a small island chain that grows some sugar and has nice refueling ports, nothing like India or even Hong Kong in importance. Their opinion on American Taiwan is going to depend strictly on their relationship with the US; OTL they were fairly appeasing of American demands at that point, but that may or may not be different ITTL. Either way, British "hunger" for Taiwan seems unlikely to be significant.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Why did the British tell their man to shut up and stop being stupid OTL?

This is the empire that annexed a centuries old kingdom of some millions of people in the ass end of Africa because a glory hound who the government was embarrassed over got his command badly mauled by the locals.

If they turned down Hawaii OTL with a track record of flimsy annexations and concessions they must have had a reason. Most likely they just didn't see any value in it and figured an influential American minority was too much of a pain in the ass to deal with.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

It's not like the British weren't important players in China OTL.

Hawaii isn't going to be important enough to seriously change the British calculus; it's a small island chain that grows some sugar and has nice refueling ports, nothing like India or even Hong Kong in importance. Their opinion on American Taiwan is going to depend strictly on their relationship with the US; OTL they were fairly appeasing of American demands at that point, but that may or may not be different ITTL. Either way, British "hunger" for Taiwan seems unlikely to be significant.

Oh, I get that, don't worry. But if Hawaii is forming any part of their calculus (OP is that they at least annex it) - it then changes their view on the Pacific. It seems that most of the ideas so far makes Hawaii somewhat of a linchpin in British Pacific affairs.

Strategically, they would want to have that ability to supply Hawaii just as easily from the east or the west, and to keep it secure. Taiwan being in the hands of any significant power, that could POTENTIALLY (not is, potentially) hostile is a risk, that would be nullified if Britain had control of Taiwan, securing logistics between Hong Kong and Hawaii (because as I see it, Hawaii would be somewhat of a linchpin).

I just think that the British would be daft to not want control of Taiwan considering its location in such a scenario. Having it go to another power with interests that could conflict just seems dangerous and reckless.

 

[The Gunslinger]

This might be a small change, but might the HBC end up keeping their post at Yerba Buena? In OTL, they were really trying to corner the fur trade on the Pacific rim to help get a monopoly in China. If they have Hawaii, McLoughlin might be able to gain support for his ventures in California and Sitka which might create small butterflies on the Pacific coast of North America.

 

[usertron2020]

No, California was definitely colonized by that point. The empire doesn't have a chance of taking it before the Americans do.

True, but you aren't going to stop people from chest thumping.

That is a fascinating question. Can US do much about Philippines without Hawaii?

The Philippines were almost an afterthought at the start of the Spanish-American War.

Also I wonder how the rise of Japan would play out.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention the power MOST interested (proportionally) in Pacific Affairs as regarded their own national future.

Perhaps US would not be really involved in China that much.

Then they'd be the only power this side of Sweden who weren't.

So, could it safely be said that with a bit of effort and luck, we could see OTL Seattle be part of British Columbia?

Alaska is a consideration

What about impressing upon Japan? We've got the Bakumatsu just around the corner - it could mean Britain can provide more assistance to either side, British Protectorate in Japan? Yes please!

Too bad there won't be anyone left in the British Isles since they'll all be overseas defending and exploiting this mega-empire.

And Japan is a protectorate to nobody!

Why did the British tell their man to shut up and stop being stupid OTL?

This is the empire that annexed a centuries old kingdom of some millions of people in the ass end of Africa because a glory hound who the government was embarrassed over got his command badly mauled by the locals.

If they turned down Hawaii OTL with a track record of flimsy annexations and concessions they must have had a reason. Most likely they just didn't see any value in it and figured an influential American minority was too much of a pain in the ass to deal with.

Not to mention that seven course meals were one thing. Sixteen course meals were another. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

I suspect that after the costs of the 7YW, ARW, Wars of the French Revolution, and Napoleonic Wars the British Government saw the wisdom in not trying to grab for every single last morsel on the table. They did that at the end of the 7YW, pissing off both their enemies and (now ex-)allies, and found that at the next war THEY were the ones at the beggars table, without a single Continental ally to call upon. And whatever our...prouder, Pax Britannica fans may have to say about the matter, at the very least Great Britain could not have withstood a global war (1) with all the other powers as their enemy or hostile neutral.

1) Whether in terms of matters military, economic, or political, Something would have given. Most likely a fall of the current British government.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Too bad there won't be anyone left in the British Isles since they'll all be overseas defending and exploiting this mega-empire.

There were zero Americans north of the Columbia River, most of the settlers that arrived 1841-42 situated themselves in the Williamette Valley, and only survived because of the kindness of the British in Fort Vancouver. Britain has an incredibly strong claim of ownership in the area and could easily prove it.

If Britain had been playing hardball, they could have easily set back American expansion in the northwest by 5-10 by just leaving the early settlers to their own devices.

 

[deathscompanion1]

There were zero Americans north of the Columbia River, most of the settlers that arrived 1841-42 situated themselves in the Williamette Valley, and only survived because of the kindness of the British in Fort Vancouver. Britain has an incredibly strong claim of ownership in the area and could easily prove it.

If Britain had been playing hardball, they could have easily set back American expansion in the northwest by 5-10 by just leaving the early settlers to their own devices.

Not like the British weren't somewhat distracted during 1841 and totally disinterested in pissing of a nation that had already made noises about fighting over far less than that.


The British didn't really give a damn about North America, hell come 1890 they decided if it came to a fight they would abandon the whole lot and work on the best peace deal they could as a military necessity.


The British weren't stupid they could calculate risks and reward as well as anyone and they decided quite early on that the Americans could beat their chests as much as they wanted because Britain could afford to give up claims to empty land they didn't need or care about to keep a major trade partner and potential threat to a colony/dominion content. It worked out pretty well for them.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Not like the British weren't somewhat distracted during 1841 and totally disinterested in pissing of a nation that had already made noises about fighting over far less than that.


The British didn't really give a damn about North America, hell come 1890 they decided if it came to a fight they would abandon the whole lot and work on the best peace deal they could as a military necessity.


The British weren't stupid they could calculate risks and reward as well as anyone and they decided quite early on that the Americans could beat their chests as much as they wanted because Britain could afford to give up claims to empty land they didn't need or care about to keep a major trade partner and potential threat to a colony/dominion content. It worked out pretty well for them.

That's exactly what happened OTL for a good reason, but annexing Hawaii changes British interests in the Pacific. They've got a commanding presence north of the Columbia and expanding business interests in Alaska and California because of it. It doesn't take much for the British to push for the river as the border, and I honestly think the outcome would be almost congruent to the OTL result.

 

[usertron2020]

There were zero Americans north of the Columbia River, most of the settlers that arrived 1841-42 situated themselves in the Williamette Valley, and only survived because of the kindness of the British in Fort Vancouver. Britain has an incredibly strong claim of ownership in the area and could easily prove it.

If Britain had been playing hardball, they could have easily set back American expansion in the northwest by 5-10 by just leaving the early settlers to their own devices.

I was addressing the sum of ALL the boasts made about unlimited expansions by the British in this thread. The NW American Frontier (present day Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming), Hawaii, California, Alaska, Taiwan, the Philippines, more of China, Siberia(!?), JAPAN!??...

Yeah, pretty empty will be the streets of London ITTL. So too the coffers of the Exchequer.

Not like the British weren't somewhat distracted during 1841<snip>

The British Empire would be stronger as a power as a whole at other times in its history, but in terms of naval supremacy against any other conceivable enemy, no. In the Pax Britannica it could honestly be said that the British were suffering from the same dilemma as the US military does today: Far too much over-investment in national defense and (mostly) serving far-flung imperial interests overseas. Expecting the Maxim machine gun and total naval supremacy to solve all problems.

That's exactly what happened OTL for a good reason, but annexing Hawaii changes British interests in the Pacific. They've got a commanding presence north of the Columbia and expanding business interests in Alaska and California because of it. It doesn't take much for the British to push for the river at the border, and I honestly think the outcome would be almost congruent to the OTL result.

Would you mind expanding on this...?

Its a LONG way between London and Alaska with no Panama Canal.

 

[robcraufurd]

I was addressing the sum of ALL the boasts made about unlimited expansions by the British in this thread.

I think you're mistaking boasts for questions. People here recognise that the majority of British expansion in this period comes through a crisis in which Britain ends up having to step in and take control to preserve lives or business interests, rather than a deliberate programme of annexation. What people are trying to work out is what effect changing the centre of gravity of British power in the Pacific might have, and spitballing countries that might have been affected by it. The only post in which all of them appear together is yours, and some of the ones you've collated are flat-out jokes.

You're thinkg too SMALL. British SIBERIA!

Why did the British tell their man to shut up and stop being stupid OTL?

I suspect that Paulet's actions were inspired in part by the French annexation of Tahiti in 1842, which in turn was inspired by the British assumption of sovereignty over New Zealand. The overruling of Paulet's actions is because at this stage the British have little desire to assume sovereignty over strong native kingdoms capable of and willing to govern adequately, which Admiral Thomas's visit confirm applies to Hawaii. Attitudes towards empire do change over the course of the 19th century, you know. Speaking of:

This is the empire that annexed a centuries old kingdom of some millions of people in the ass end of Africa because a glory hound who the government was embarrassed over got his command badly mauled by the locals

What exactly are you talking about here? I thought maybe the Zulus (36 years after the events we're discussing), but that war was pushed for by the High Commissioner and the Zulus are close to British interests in South Africa. Then I thought perhaps Khartoum (42 years after the events we're discussing), but British suzerainty in Egypt dates from before Gordon's death and, again, Egypt is strategically pretty important.

Expecting the Maxim machine gun and total naval supremacy to solve all problems.

Remarkably foresighted of them, given that at this point they're only just introducing the percussion musket and the future Sir Hiram Maxim is three years old. Or did you mean that the US army is still using Maxims?

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

What exactly are you talking about here? I thought maybe the Zulus (36 years after the events we're discussing), but that war was pushed for by the High Commissioner and the Zulus are close to British interests in South Africa. Then I thought perhaps Khartoum (42 years after the events we're discussing), but British suzerainty in Egypt dates from before Gordon's death and, again, Egypt is strategically pretty important.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the British annexation of the Benin Empire, which was primarily motivated by protection of palm oil traders in the area.

 

[robcraufurd]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the British annexation of the Benin Empire, which was primarily motivated by protection of palm oil traders in the area.

Really? I mean, it fits his criteria but that's fifty-four years after the events we're talking about. Someone could have started a career at the Foreign Office the day after the Paulet affair took place, and still have enjoyed a lengthy retirement and be dead before Benin took place. Using my standard music comparison, it's longer than the distance between the Charleston and the Hustle.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Really? I mean, it fits his criteria but that's fifty-four years after the events we're talking about. Someone could have started a career at the Foreign Office the day after the Paulet affair took place, and still have enjoyed a lengthy retirement and be dead before Benin took place. Using my standard music comparison, it's longer than the distance between the Charleston and the Hustle.

I don't necessarily agree, that's just what I'm pretty sure he's referring to because I can't think of any other example which fits that description. I guess the validity depends on how strongly you consider "new" imperialism a break from the old.

 

[robcraufurd]

I guess the validity depends on how strongly you consider "new" imperialism a break from the old.

I think the fact that the best example he can find to prove his point is over half a century later tends to support rather than contradict the idea of a break. Remember that in 1843, "imperialism" still means the despotic or tyrannical rule of an emperor, and its use in the context of the policy of empire is still thirty five years away. Or, to use my musical comparison once again, Mr Sandman to Straight Outta Compton.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Would you mind expanding on this...?

Its a LONG way between London and Alaska with no Panama Canal.

John McLoughlin (prefactor at Fort Vancouver) was quite an ambitious man and set up trading posts in both Alaska and California (with Russian and Mexican permission). In OTL he got shut down by his boss for his business dealings, but with Britain entrenched in Hawaii the company might be more receptive to his ambitions. This might not lead to domination in either of the areas, but having a firm postion there might help them push for the Columbia border in the boundary dispute (because they're making money of their position there).

 

[Alt History Buff]

That's exactly what happened OTL for a good reason, but annexing Hawaii changes British interests in the Pacific. They've got a commanding presence north of the Columbia and expanding business interests in Alaska and California because of it. It doesn't take much for the British to push for the river as the border, and I honestly think the outcome would be almost congruent to the OTL result.

I'm not sure if Britain's presense was considered "Commanding" for another fifty years or so.

British Columbia's population remained small until the trans-continental railroad was built.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I wonder if, in the event of such an annexation, there would be moves from BNA/Canada to ask for Hawaii to be part of their dominion. Sort of like how NZ and Australia (or its predecessor colonies) worked to gain Pacific islands for their own sub-empires.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Too bad there won't be anyone left in the British Isles since they'll all be overseas defending and exploiting this mega-empire.

And Japan is a protectorate to nobody!

You realise the British Empire did use non-white settlers right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_Asian

Frankly, if the Empire wanted to act in the region, then using a mix of white and Indian settlers/workers will be a great advantage.

Then again, as @robcrauford pointed out, these are ideas, not "OMG BRITAIN WILL CONQUER IT ALL!"

Frankly, I'd love it if a British Hawaii lead to a greater cultural merger between British and Indian settlers. I'd find that very interesting, and incredibly practical if you send troublesome Indians to areas where they can't cause trouble/are still useful.

Also, you realise there is STILL an ongoing discussion about whether or not Japan is an American protectorate at the moment?

I won't deny any invasion/domination of Japan would be difficult, I simply mentioned that we aren't far from a period of Japanese strife, and that tends to be when Europeans took advantage of the locals.

MMmmmmm. British Kyushu

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not sure if Britain's presense was considered "Commanding" for another fifty years or so.

British Columbia's population remained small until the trans-continental railroad was built.

That's correct, but when the Oregon boundary dispute was ongoing, Britain maintained the only real presence on that side of the river. The Americans never really had a strong presence there until Britain called it quits.

 

[The Gunslinger]

You realise the British Empire did use non-white settlers right?

There were quite a few Hawaiians working for the HBC along the west coast already at Fort Vancouver, a small cultural exchange had already begun.