19th century missionaries on Pacific islands

For an alternate time line I want to reduce the influence of American missionaries in Hawaii. One factor is that American and British missionaries agreed to split the Pacific, with Americans working north of the equator and the British south.
Can anyone direct me to any details about this agreement, such as was it in writing? did it have a timeframe? when did it begin and when did it end? etc.
TIA.
Other ideas to accomplish this are also welcome. One factor I'm already using is a pod of Hawaiian literacy prior to contact with the West.
 
Hmmm. Unless someone can correct me it appears to have been an informal agreement between the London Missionary Society and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) and seems to have been in place from the earliest missionary forays into the region in the 1810's or soon after. One source I found noted that:

"British Protestant missionaries worked in Hawai'i only under the leadership of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. They had agreed to establish missionary stations only south of the equator in the Pacific Islands, leaving most of the central and north Pacific to the Americans. The American missionaries were still serving in Hawai'i on a trail basis on May 1, 1822, when the ship promised by Vancouver to Kamehameha finally arrived, sailing from Australia. The captain of the Prince Regent told Kamehameha's son and successor Liholiho and his court that the British supported the work of the American missionaries in Hawai'i, saving the day for the fledgling mission station in Honolulu and ensuring its future in the Islands."

King Kamehameha II (formerly Prince Liholiho) apparently had some real distrust of the American missionaries and American influence in the country and only relented when the British vouched for them. The exclusion of American missionaries from Hawaii appears to be something that wan't unlikely in our history. If Kamehameha II doesn't die from measles and the Americans cause an incident I think their exclusion in favor of British missionaries is likely. Especially since Kamehameha II was trying to get put under British protection.

I also did come across a very interesting letter to the editor from 1851 which accused missionaries to Hawaii of being political meddlers who've become "clerical politicians".
http://www.maritimeheritage.org/news/missionaries.htm

 
Last edited:
informal agreement between the London Missionary Society and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) and seems to have been in place from the earliest missionary forays into the region in the 1810's or soon after.
Thanks, this is very helpful.
I'm going to keep Liholiho alive and I think he'll bring back a couple of Anglican priests. They wouldn't abrogate the agreement because they wouldn't evangelize publically, but having them as royal chaplains would I think moderate the Americans' impact.
 
Thanks, this is very helpful.
I'm going to keep Liholiho alive and I think he'll bring back a couple of Anglican priests. They wouldn't abrogate the agreement because they wouldn't evangelize publically, but having them as royal chaplains would I think moderate the Americans' impact.

It might not even need to be that subtle. After his trip to England you could have Liholiho publicly state his preference for British missionaries to lead the efforts in Hawaii (he was known to be concerningly impulsive and after all it wasn't his agreement). The Americans would be embarrassed and upset but since this is the 1820's I don't think there would be much fallout from the US. Especially since there were British missionaries ready to step in and the argument could be made that if conversion could be managed swiftly, why did it matter who led it. Plus British egos would probably be stroked by the development which would aid Liholiho's goal of getting British protection.

While we can't know for certain it seems to me that the Liholiho's goal may have been to make Hawaii a British protectorate like one of the princely states. That way Hawaii would lose its nominal independence but enjoy all the benefits of self rule and British defense. Long term that would probably have been a better outcome than trying to walk the middle ground between the US and UK and might have even kept the Hawaiian monarchs in power.

However you do it, it sounds like a really interesting timeline.
 
Thanks. For the conscript which the Hawaiians invented before contact with West, see http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/kakauna.htm.

I think you are right that in 1824 the Americans were not too entrenched to just tell them to leave, but I'm hesitant to set up a religious conflict. In fact, I'll probably try to avoid the whole expulsion of Catholics episode. So, I'm thinking that Liholiho simply insists on allowing the Anglicans in addition to the Americans.

Yes, all of this is in order to retain the Kingdom of Hawaii by being formally made a protectorate, either right then during Liholiho's visit or some other time before mid-1840s. (After that, the U.S. is paying too much attention and annexation becomes inevitable.) There was every indication that Britain had no interest in actually governing the country as long as they got what they wanted in terms of protections for British subjects on the islands. Once we get a protectorate, we could expect the same general pattern of the other British-controlled Pacific islands getting their independence. Hawaii's would probably come earlier since it will have all the experience it needs in self-government.

(One thing I haven't decided is whether to keep Kamāmalu alive also and let them have a direct heir. In some ways, that would be simpler because there would then be no need to address much of the later political brouhahas about election of a monarch.)

Once I get all the details worked out on the protectorate, I realize I'll need to learn a lot more about British naval operations in the Pacific from that point, particularly after WWI and leading up to WWII.
 
Top