Wow, that is really cool! This is why I say President Lincoln a list timeline would do well to get as many natives on his side as he can, the union faces a real struggle. I knew a number of natives did fight for the union, though others fought for the Confederacy, but I had no idea how many foreigners also fought for the Union. It is quite amazing.
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Hawaii can't 'join up on better terms' because that implies it was the Hawaiians who joined up at all. There were plenty of native Hawaiians who had sympathy for some Americans, yes.
There were Hawaiians who recognised the fragility of their independence and thought a good relationship with the USA might help, yes.
There was not, however, any number of native Hawaiians who thought 'well, they've ended slavery- let's give them our land and encourage them to swamp us with cheap foreign labour that will make us a small minority in our own islands.'
It's conceivable that the Hawaiian kingdom might have decided that full independence was not tenable, and taken the gamble that if they applied to be a US protectorate they might avoid the worst excesses of foreign rule. Something similar happened to the Cook Islands, whose Queen decided that the only choice she had left was French or British colonialism and hoped that she'd retain more autonomy under the British.
But let's not sugar coat colonialism. Once Hawaii becomes a territory of the US, it is a group of islands full of people of colour with very valuable land. Their culture is going to be attacked, they are going to lose their land, they are going to lose any role in government.
Just because a person is an abolitionist does not mean they believe in racial equality.
Don't hope for a fairy tale of 'colonialism, but this time nice.'
There were Hawaiians who recognised the fragility of their independence and thought a good relationship with the USA might help, yes.
There was not, however, any number of native Hawaiians who thought 'well, they've ended slavery- let's give them our land and encourage them to swamp us with cheap foreign labour that will make us a small minority in our own islands.'
It's conceivable that the Hawaiian kingdom might have decided that full independence was not tenable, and taken the gamble that if they applied to be a US protectorate they might avoid the worst excesses of foreign rule. Something similar happened to the Cook Islands, whose Queen decided that the only choice she had left was French or British colonialism and hoped that she'd retain more autonomy under the British.
But let's not sugar coat colonialism. Once Hawaii becomes a territory of the US, it is a group of islands full of people of colour with very valuable land. Their culture is going to be attacked, they are going to lose their land, they are going to lose any role in government.
Just because a person is an abolitionist does not mean they believe in racial equality.
Don't hope for a fairy tale of 'colonialism, but this time nice.'
Last edited:
This is something people sometimes overlook, even a raging bigot can be against actual slavery.
That’s a good point. What I meant though is that maybe Lincoln and/or a like-minded successor, having encountered Hawaiian abolitionists during the war, might favor a fairer policy with the islands, sort of like how Grant wanted to pass bills that favored positive relations with Native American nations. Not really sure if it’s at all realistic, but one can still dream.
Unfortunately, that founders on strategic imperatives.
1. Hawaii is incredibly valuable naval real estate. Once the US looks to the Pacific, it has to secure the islands. This, in and of itself doesn't have to mean annexation- Pearl Harbor could conceivably have been a permanent lease. However, the flip side is that Hawaii can't be allowed to fall into the hands of anyone else, either.
2. Far more dangerously for the Hawaiians, they're prime land for plantations. In fact, at the time it's probably the only basis for a working economy. They can't develop them competitively just with native labour, though. That means they either spiral into debt- and get bought up by foreign businesses who bring the great powers with them- or they open the land for foreign labor, at which they get swamped by foreign businesses. Crucially, just as in Samoa and Fiji, once foreigners are in the country even the ones who are somewhat sympathetic to the locals will still think that the islands will be better off under foreign rule.
So that means as the US that you have a situation where the islands losing their sovereignty becomes more likely than not, so your best bet is to step in before the British or whoever else gets any ideas.
The best case scenario at this late stage is probably that they end up like Tonga- technically independent, but a protectorate nonetheless with an economy dominated by foreigners.
The other, less likely alternative is that you somehow end up with a New Hebrides situation. If the British and Americans agree on some form of joint administration- foreign residents, basing rights and so on- then Hawaii could somehow stagger on into the twentieth century and hope that it acquires some form of freedom when decolonization rolls around. But this arrangement didn't work in Samoa, and I doubt it will work here.
Even in the best case scenario, the Hawaiians are going to be fucked over. It doesn't matter whether it's at the hands of the plantation owners, or 'benevolent' missionaries (who would probably be the face of any 'friendly' American posture.)
1. Hawaii is incredibly valuable naval real estate. Once the US looks to the Pacific, it has to secure the islands. This, in and of itself doesn't have to mean annexation- Pearl Harbor could conceivably have been a permanent lease. However, the flip side is that Hawaii can't be allowed to fall into the hands of anyone else, either.
2. Far more dangerously for the Hawaiians, they're prime land for plantations. In fact, at the time it's probably the only basis for a working economy. They can't develop them competitively just with native labour, though. That means they either spiral into debt- and get bought up by foreign businesses who bring the great powers with them- or they open the land for foreign labor, at which they get swamped by foreign businesses. Crucially, just as in Samoa and Fiji, once foreigners are in the country even the ones who are somewhat sympathetic to the locals will still think that the islands will be better off under foreign rule.
So that means as the US that you have a situation where the islands losing their sovereignty becomes more likely than not, so your best bet is to step in before the British or whoever else gets any ideas.
The best case scenario at this late stage is probably that they end up like Tonga- technically independent, but a protectorate nonetheless with an economy dominated by foreigners.
The other, less likely alternative is that you somehow end up with a New Hebrides situation. If the British and Americans agree on some form of joint administration- foreign residents, basing rights and so on- then Hawaii could somehow stagger on into the twentieth century and hope that it acquires some form of freedom when decolonization rolls around. But this arrangement didn't work in Samoa, and I doubt it will work here.
Even in the best case scenario, the Hawaiians are going to be fucked over. It doesn't matter whether it's at the hands of the plantation owners, or 'benevolent' missionaries (who would probably be the face of any 'friendly' American posture.)
the king who still will be the king will never accept british soverintigty and being a british colony isn't exactly great
The Princely States might be seen as a better example to follow than the US territories, though.
the britian won't due that in the pacfic though they are diffrent situation
As others have noted, Tonga retained its monarch and most of its sovereignty. The treaty with the UK made it a protectorate and gave Britain control over Tonga's foreign policy and veto powers over finances but otherwise left it alone. For Hawaii I would imagine it would also include a naval base but I don't see why it would not be given the same treatment as Tonga.
Alternatehistory.com! Come for the timelines, stay for learning about actual history!
So speaking about learning ...
This is definitely a dumb question but during battles and such where would generals be at? On a horse watching things or behind there armies or?
Like I keep hearing about (mostly confederate) generals getting sick and losing advantages because of it but wouldn’t they still have been capable of writing orders ?
so there was some physical aspect /risk right?
This is definitely a dumb question but during battles and such where would generals be at? On a horse watching things or behind there armies or?
Like I keep hearing about (mostly confederate) generals getting sick and losing advantages because of it but wouldn’t they still have been capable of writing orders ?
so there was some physical aspect /risk right?
That depends, partly on rank, partly on personal preference and what the terrain allowed. It would not be surprising to see a brigadeer general on foot afaik
It depends on their level of command. Army and Corps commander usually (and should) stay mounted at the rear,
where they nail themselves to a good observation point, and send his aides with the orders. Remaining in the same area meant that the messages from other commanders reached him promptly and were responded to promptly as well.
Army and Corps commanders have historically been at the front and it usually does not end well.
As a sort of ultimate negative benchmark, take Bull Sumner from the Union side and A.S. Johnston from the Confederate. Sumner had three divisions at Antietam, and they were deployed in a rather staggered manner, mostly accidentally. French's division fell behind, got lost, and ended up heading for the Sunken Road, with Richardson's division following it later. Sumner was riding with his lead division, Sedgwick's, and had no idea this was happening. Sedgwickwas a competent, experienced regular army soldier; he didn't need Sumner to hold his hand. And to cap it all off, Sumner led the division into disaster in the West Woods. A.S. Johnston completely lost control of the Battle of Shiloh because he was riding to and fro on the front line playing brigade commander. When he needed reinforcements to break the Hornet's Nest, most of his troops were being funnelled to the other flank by Beauregard, who was distracted by Union counterattacks in that sector. Because Johnston was at the front, there was absolutely nothing he could do to stop this and maintain his desired attack plan. To cap it off, he got himself shot and killed.
Now, there's instances where a commander might really be needed on the front; the looming spectre of defeat at Cedar Creek probably necessitated Horatio Wright's presence on and near the front-lines to personally rally retreating troops and align defenses, for example.
Division commanders usually stay close to the front but not directly at the line of fire. They are typically mounted so as to be able to visit any sector of their division. If the situation called for it, division commanders could ride to the front to encourage the troops. Sherman, for example, rallied his division at Shiloh in the face of a determined Confederate attack. In fact, some commanders made a habit of fighting too close to the front. They weren't necessarily idiotic; Jesse Reno and Phil Kearny certainly weren't fools, and were actually fairly effective combat commanders. But they didn't adequately comprehend the responsibilities higher command conferred on them. Leading personal reconnaissances for instance, like Reno and Kearny died doing, or Ben McCulloch at Pea Ridge and Jackson at Chancellorsville, was not really the business of division or corps commanders.
Brigade and regiment commanders spend the war at the firing line. The attrition rate was fairly high but bravery and frontline leadership were expected from these officers.
That's an interesting scenario, though the Confederacy starting a second war would be suicide lol.
I'd need to research more about Hawaii. I actually don't know much about it...
This is an important point, guys.
For what's it worth, my TL contains a lot of actual history itself. The two mini-updates are practically just retellings of OTL events. The butterflies are starting to spread their wings, but no real radical change has taken place. Yet.
Arnold D.C. already gave an excellent explanation, but I wanted to add a curious little anecdote. Union forces in two occasions drove the rebels back all the way to Lee's headquarters, and in both occasions Lee wanted to lead a counterattack himself. The soldiers themselves told him to fall back to security.
