Could New Zealand have ended up part of the United States?

My Feedly feed pointed me to a provoactive article by Gizmodo's Paleofuture blog written by one Matt Novak, "New Zealand Could Have Been Part of the United States". The title sounds sensationalistic, but Novak does make the good point that the young British colony of New Zealand in the mid-19th century did have very close ties with the United States.

New Zealand became a British colony in 1841, but white emigration to the island nation, which was inhabited by the native Maori people, didn’t really surge until gold was discovered in 1861. The gold rush saw New Zealand’s population explode in the 1860s from roughly 99,000 at the start of the decade to 256,000 by 1871. The gold rush brought plenty of Californians, and the colony became inundated with a relatively small but rowdy bunch of Americans who didn’t acknowledge any allegiance to the United Kingdom.

As historian Gerald Horne explains in the 2007 book The White Pacific, “When gold was discovered in Otago in 1861, it was the New Zealanders who attracted attention from California to the point where there was very temporary talk of New Zealand becoming a part of the United States. In both England and New Zealand it was widely believed that an independent New Zealand would gravitate toward the U.S. sphere.”

If the small colony of New Zealand had sought independence from Britain in the 1860s or 70s, Americans could well be calling it a territory, or even a state. After all, there were just 33 American states in 1860.

The New Zealand gold rush also happened to coincide with the beginning of the American Civil War. After the war, there was a Confederate diaspora to the South Pacific—former slave owners in the Southern United States who kept up the slave trade in places like Fiji and Australia. Former American Confederates fled to places like New Zealand, which itself had outlawed slavery, but was just a short hop away from where the trade of human beings was still tacitly accepted.

Anywhere from 60,000 to 120,000 slaves were brought to Australia to work in sugar and cotton fields there between the 1860s and 1900, despite the fact that the country officially forbade slavery. Trade skyrocketed between the United States and New Zealand in the second half of the 19th century as a result of this increased activity by Californians and Confederates in the South Pacific—traders trafficking in both the gold rush of human beings, driven by British and American demand for cheap cotton, and the literal gold rush.​

These certainly were close links. For the United States to have been able to challenge British rule in New Zealand, however, would imply a United States with a much stronger navy relative to the British Empire than OTL. Too, there would be plenty of closer targets in the British Empire for the United States to aim for--Canada, to start, and the Caribbean if the United States had the appetite. Notwithstanding the significant American influence in Polynesia, a United States that was able to take over New Zealand would be a much bigger naval power than OTL.

Is there a scenario that could give us an American New Zealand? What would it involve? With minimal divergences, I could only imagine a United States that had waged a successful war against the British Empire in concert with other great powers. A Franco-American alliance, maybe? A peaceful handover is more difficult to imagine still, though perhaps if the United Kingdom thought it could not secure these islands passing it to an ally might be imaginable. Another possibility I can imagine would involve Americans actually preempting the British and the French in extending their sovereignty over the homeland of the Maori, something perhaps involving early whalers.

What would work? As importantly, what would an American New Zealand look like? I am afraid that, if the paradigm applied to the indigenous peoples of the American West was applied here, the Maori might encountered significantly worse outcomes than in our history.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
America proceeds on a Hamiltonian trajectory from the 1790s, with a faster growing economy and navy. Hamiltonianism victorious could prevent the Civil War or make federal victory less costly and faster. By the 1860s, 2nd or 3rd generation Federalists lose their deference to Great Britain and become willing to challenge her.
 
The main issue I see is that New Zealand is far away. Travel by ship would take more than 2 months, which makes it tricky even for, for example, members of Congress to shuttle back and forth between their home constituencies and the sessions of government.

OTL, a few transpacific telegraph cables were laid at the very beginning of the 20th century. That could maybe be brought forward a little (part of the reason why it took so long was lack of motivation - voices began calling for it in 1870, the first action towards it was taken in 1889). We're then looking at a cable by, say, 1880 at the earliest (and more practically, 5-10 years after whenever ties to New Zealand are wanted). This could be very helpful, but I'm not sure that transport will be fast enough to make this feasible until the 1910s or 1920s.

Britain didn't have this problem (as badly) because they first ran New Zealand as a colony and then devolved a lot of power to it; the US would presumably want it as a territory or state, and territories are far from being colonies. Looking to Hawai'i is not a bad example, but travel times from Hawai'i to Washington by way of San Francisco were much shorter than to New Zealand.
 
The very real answer is 'no, probably not'. I'm hesitant to give anything a solid 'no', because I believe that in AH anything is possible by some cruel twist of fate, but by 1841 New Zealand was firmly in the grip of the UK and by the 1860's/70's they were heavily invested in finishing off the Land Wars and securing the colony, and also in keeping France out of their sphere of influence in the South Pacific (which, as evidenced by New Caledonia especially, they weren't wholly successful with).
 
I should make an admission from the beginning that, although my former advisor has spent years studying New Zealand history, he didn't pass much of that knowledge on to me. So, I'm kinda going in blind here.

But:

I think the best way to go about this would be to have New England missionaries arrive to convert the Maori early on. In addition to recognize duties, they would likely also attract New England traders as well. This would give the US a presence in New Zealand from early on.

Then have gold discovered a bit after the American Civil War. You could see Californians and Ex-Confederates striking out to the island in search of adventure and riches. These are a rowdy bunch who would likely resent the British crown.

So you now have a larger population of Americans with a longer American presence in New Zealand. Should some form of revolution occur, ita very likely that the new government would seek American protection. Of course, whether this government is even able to secure independence is determined entirely on just how much of a fight Britain is willing to put up over it. What's the strategic value of New Zealand to the British Empire at the time?

Perhaps the US is able to negotiate a deal with the UK whereas they take over possession of New Zealand after the uprising and agree to pay for it and maintain Britain's trading rights?

In any case this would be best done of the American acquisition occurs roughly around the same time, or after, the take over of Hawaii. I could definitely see Roosevelt and his crew supporting annexation in order to give the US a stronger presence in the Pacific.

Now, if the stars all align and this comes to pass (and assuming not too many butterflies), New Zealand probably doesn't become a state until the 1950s along the same time as Hawaii and Alaska in OTL.
 
America proceeds on a Hamiltonian trajectory from the 1790s, with a faster growing economy and navy. Hamiltonianism victorious could prevent the Civil War or make federal victory less costly and faster. By the 1860s, 2nd or 3rd generation Federalists lose their deference to Great Britain and become willing to challenge her.

The American economy could not have grown very much quicker in the 1800's than it did. Long-run 4%+ growth in the 19th century is essentially unbeatable.

Moreover, a 'Hamiltonian' economy would likely have grown slower. The Federalists in the 1790's were very suspicious of the pace of Western development and wished to mostly maintain the population East of the Appalachians, settling the West with new immigrants (a source which didn't explode until the 1840's). Imagine a Chicago that was still a sleepy frontier town in the 1860's! In addition to this mistrust/hostility to Western development, a Hamiltonian economy would involve significantly higher taxes and public debt without the reciprocal reinvestment/demand pump of welfare spending and transfer payments that we get today. There would probably also be more significant unrest as a Federalist government is not going to take the democratization that occurred in the early 19th century lying down: They're going to resist it and that's going to drive political and even violent resistance to the authority of the government.

The vulnerabilities/shortcomings of the 19th century US economy (and fragile, boom-bust prone banking system, fr.ex.) didn't really have a constituency for fixing them. The unit banking laws that hobbled the financial system, to take the example further, were widely supported by the small bankers themselves well into the 20th century because they loved the protection from larger banking companies that anti-branching laws gave them. It took until the late 19th century for any sort of resistence to bond-security mechanisms to surface -- to touch on another shortcoming in the 19th century American banking system --, and I'm not aware of any really serious objection prior to that.

Nevertheless, despite these problems, like I said at the beginning the American economy in the 19th century grew incredibly quickly. It was the China of the 1800s. You can't really speed it up significantly.
 
Something that would come into play is the Treaty of Waitangi which was between the Maori and thr British crown. Maori in New Zealand and also many British New Zealanders of the time respected the treaty very much and if the colony were to become American there would be a heavy push to see some sort of new treaty between Washington and Maori for their protected rights as American citizens of equal ranking as white Americans, which is something I see as very unlikely with the American government of the day, considering how they treated the natives back in America.

Although I do not see this TL as ASB, because pre-1840 when the treaty was signed, a small but significant amount of the white population in the upper North Island of NZ were American traders, sealers and whalers. This population would surely have to increase but if gold were found earlier Im sure many Americans would flock here. I seem to remember that I watched a video at school when I was about 15, about an American who had a role in the signing of the Treaty. I cant remember his name but I do remember he was quite influential among Maori and I think he either married a Maori woman or owned her as a slave... (before the treaty, New Zealand was a very lawless place)
 
In the 1860's there were still parts of the continental US being colonised. I really don't see that many American making a permanent move to NZ. Most of the whalers were only on temporary stays.
 
In the 1860's there were still parts of the continental US being colonised. I really don't see that many American making a permanent move to NZ. Most of the whalers were only on temporary stays.

Yes and no. An earlier discovery of gold could definitely have a pretty large demographic impact; look at California, or even Alaska and the Yukon slightly later. Americans have proven that they will flood a region where they have some sort of connection with, the second gold is discovered. If we have a larger New England presence in New Zealand to give that 'bridge' I could see the American presence being, if not overwhelming, then at least significant.
 
Something that would come into play is the Treaty of Waitangi which was between the Maori and thr British crown. Maori in New Zealand and also many British New Zealanders of the time respected the treaty very much and if the colony were to become American there would be a heavy push to see some sort of new treaty between Washington and Maori for their protected rights as American citizens of equal ranking as white Americans, which is something I see as very unlikely with the American government of the day, considering how they treated the natives back in America.

Although I do not see this TL as ASB, because pre-1840 when the treaty was signed, a small but significant amount of the white population in the upper North Island of NZ were American traders, sealers and whalers. This population would surely have to increase but if gold were found earlier Im sure many Americans would flock here. I seem to remember that I watched a video at school when I was about 15, about an American who had a role in the signing of the Treaty. I cant remember his name but I do remember he was quite influential among Maori and I think he either married a Maori woman or owned her as a slave... (before the treaty, New Zealand was a very lawless place)

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that white New Zealanders respected the treaty so much; do you have any good sources I could check out?
 
I'm somewhat surprised to hear that white New Zealanders respected the treaty so much; do you have any good sources I could check out?

The treaty was repected differently between White and Maori New Zealanders. When i say white New Zealanders, I mainly mean the missonaries that were in NZ at the time. They were the ones who pushed for the treaty and they and their families made up much of the white population in Northland (the place where the treaty was first signed) in 1840. The British New Zealanders at the time were also very patriotic towards the motherland, and viewed the connection between the treaty and the crown as very important. However the meanings of the english and maori versions of the treaty were slightly different and the two interpretations have caused trouble even today. Over time I think as more and more non-missionary immigrants came to NZ, the importance of the treaty to white New Zealanders became less and less, and this probably happened quite quickly especially when conflict broke out soon after the signing, however while the importance of the treaty became less and less, it is still viewed as New Zealand's founding document and Maori still had a great deal of respect (compared to Native Americans or Aboriginies in Australia) with a decent amount of political power within parliament, and I think if Americans were looking to annex NZ, the majority of New Zealanders would raise the issue of the treaty. The main source I have was actually at Auckland Museum but other than that,
http://www.newzealand.com/int/feature/treaty-of-waitangi/ has some explaination on the background/aftermath of the treaty and the fading respect, and
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html explains the differences in the importance of the treaty to British NZers to the crown, and Maori NZers about rights.
 
In terms of practicality, New Zealand is too far away to be governed by the United States. As a self governing territory, it would be fine. But once it got populous enough to become a state, the New Zealanders will likely chafe at Washington being too far away and desire to become independent (although perhaps under a customs union with the US and various defensive and economic pacts).
 
Top