Disputes over marginal borders in Venezuela or Alaska are not strategic concessions, but a Hawaii openly appealing for British protection and it being rejected, would be one. That is something I don't think Britain would be prepared to risk. If it was an appeal after say, 1890, then Britain would probably try and negotiate a treaty guaranteeing Hawaiian independence rather than declare protectorate status, but before then I would say Britain would be willing to force the issue if it was at the Hawaiian monarchs' insistence.
I have just been reading from Ralph S. Kuykendall,
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, The Kalakaua Dynasty and it has an interesting discussion of some events of 1881:
***
Kalakaua's arrival in Europe and his progress from Italy to England its the early part of July furnished the occasion for numerous articles in American newspapers in regard to the Hawaiian islands, their king. and the relations between the island kingdom and the United States. One of the most important was an editorial in the New York Times of July 14, 1881, which began with the flat statement, "It is an open secret that Kalakaua, King of the Hawaiian Islands, is on a voyage around the world for the purpose of selling his kingdom." The writer referred to the extensive American interests in Hawaii and the importance of the islands to the United States, and remarked: "If annexation ever arrives, it must take the Islands to the United States, and that this step would be denounced by foreign residents who are not Americans is also true; but in any event, although our Government cannot afford to promote any policy of annexation, the other Governments of the world should be notified that any attempt on their part to acquire the Sandwich Islands, by purchase or otherwise, would be regarded by the United States as an unfriendly act." The Times article was telegraphed to Washington, San Francisco, and other parts of the United States, and to Europe. The assertion that Kalakaua was intent on selling his kingdom was promptly denied by Elisha H. Allen, Hawaiian minister to the United States, in letters to the Times, pub-lished in that paper on July 28, and to the secretary of state in Washington, In Europe, Kalakaua, when questioned, said there was "not a word of truth" in the report. "My kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, and the cession people talk of could not be effected in my absence or without a long discussion." But a report of that kind always runs faster and farther than the denial of it.
The Times editorial and other articles on the same theme were printed in San Francisco newspapers which reached Honolulu about the first of August, and were reprinted in the Hawaiian Gazette of August 3 and the Saturday Press of August 6. Those papers and the Pacific Commercial Advertiser published strong editorials denying and condemning the false reports that were being circulated in the United States and Europe. The Advertiser said in its issue of August 13, "It is well understood that the entire story about the sale of a kingdom is a mischievous hoax originating here." It suggested that some foreign residents wanted a change for the benefit of their business interests.
Queen Emma, with whom Commissioner Wodehouse had always been on the most friendly terms, was, as he stated, greatly distressed by Secretary Blaine's remarks to Sir Edward Thornton, which served to intensify her anti-American, pro-British feelings. Immediately after the New York Times editorial and other articles from American newspapers were published in Honolulu, she wrote a letter to the commissioner, from which the following excerpts are taken:
"The sudden and bold uncovering of America's long cherished wish (which they have always denied) to possess these Islands . .. has caused me great, great grief and anxiety. . . . I consider that America is now our open enemy, and that to England would be our natural course to look for strengthening, and that as we have bounden friends in England and France, America cannot carry out her high-handed policy with regard to these Hawaiian Islands....
"The Native Hawaiians . . . are one with me in the love of our country, and determined not to let Hawaii become a part of the United States of America. We have yet the right to dispose of our country as we wish, and be assured that it will never be to a Republic!
"I do not wish to inveigle you into committing yourself or your Government, but for our safety, I repeat a question once put to you confidentially by a relative of mine from the Throne, Kamehameha V, whether, in case of emergency, England would take these Islands should we give ourselves up to her?"
In reply to the queen dowager's question, Wodehouse pointed out to her that such a course as she suggested
would certainly involve England in a war with the United States [my emphasis--DT] and would moreover be a breach of the agreement between England and France by which they bound themselves to recognize the independence of the Hawaiian islands and not to take possession of them under any form whatever. He transmitted to the British foreign minister a copy of Queen Emma's letter and in his dispatch on the subject included a statement of his reply to her question. His action in this case received the approval of Earl Granville.
http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgi-bin/...set-book--1-010escapewin&a=d&d=D0.11.15&toc=0
***
In other words, here is the British government in the early 1880s's--long before the 1890's when the prospect of a hostile Germany made Britain more determined to avoid conflict with the United States--specifically turning down Queen Emma's request that Great Britain take control of the Islands if necessary to protect them from the Americans. And Commissioner Wodehouse is explicitly giving the alleged
certainty (not just possibility) that such an action would lead to war with the US as a reason...
So whatever else may be said about the viewpoint of you and some others here that the British need not worry about US reaction to British control of Hawaii, it does not seem to have been the viewpoint of the British government itself!
