The Americans keeping a piece is interesting, but I don't think the Kingdom is viable without Honolulu. (Britain today owns a tiny piece of Hawaii, where the Captain Cook monument is.)
 
The Americans keeping a piece is interesting, but I don't think the Kingdom is viable without Honolulu. (Britain today owns a tiny piece of Hawaii, where the Captain Cook monument is.)

They can always move back to the big island. They moved their capital a lot.
 
Here’s a scenerio, what if the Hawaiian Monarchy never fell, but the Americans annexed the island of Oahu.

To me, Oahu would be the Hong Kong to the Hawaiians: territory that was yours before, only to be stolen by another power

Taking Pearl and a chunk of the surrounding area might be possible, but the POD to allow such a thing would be tricky.

I mean, if you're gonna annex all of Oahu, why stop there? just take all the islands at that point.
 
Taking Pearl and a chunk of the surrounding area might be possible, but the POD to allow such a thing would be tricky.

I mean, if you're gonna annex all of Oahu, why stop there? just take all the islands at that point.

The only way I can see the Kingdom of Hawaii most of manifest destiny is for it get foreign support
 
To sum the thread up Hawaii either gets snatched by Britain or gets turned into an American Banna (Pineapple?) Republic/Kingdom

The problem is that the thread is about Hawaii never getting annexed, so the Kingdom could allow America to annex Oahu, and maybe have control over their government, becoming a protectorate, and not a territory, and later after WWII, gain their independence like the Philippines
 
As a bit of a wildcard and for extra shits and giggles... Anglo-American Co-Dominain ala the OTL Anglo-French settlement over the New Hebrides (nowadays Vanuatu)?
 
As somewhat of a side note, if Hawaiian annexation could be averted then America might conquer more in the Caribbean. Especially Cuba. I wrote this out in another thread about maximizing the size of the United States:

M A N I F E S T D E S T I N Y

I think there are a lot of people ITT who're unjustifiably discounting the cause of America's changed attitude at the turn of the 20th century.

A lot of Americans wanted to annex Cuba, as far back as the Revolution. And a lot of people lay blame for that change on the rhetoric that Americans used to incite rebellion against Spain. ("Freedom! Independence from colonial overlords!") But, and more importantly, the vested economic interest certain people (like Senator Henry Teller) had in sugar plantations in Hawaii led Congress to pass the Teller Amendment:

The Teller clause quelled any anxiety of annexation by stating that the United States "... hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people."

The proposed amendment gained support from several forces: "... those who opposed annexing territory containing large numbers of blacks and Catholics, those who sincerely supported Cuban independence, and representatives of the domestic sugar business, including sponsor Senator Henry Teller of Colorado, who feared Cuban competition." (A significant import tariff on foreign sugar would be removed should Cuba be annexed.)
The rhetorical justification for the Teller Amendment - America's alleged commitment to independent governments nearby - belies the true reasons for America's Cuba policy.

If a POD could change the economic situation in Hawaii, then Cuba (which has magnificently fertile sugar and tobacco plantations) would be economically much more appealing to American business interests. And therefore, much more appealing to American political interests.

That way, America wouldn't double down on the independent government line after the SAW. Maybe they spin Cuban annexation as "American constitutional democracy is true freedom!" or something like that.

Contributing to this scenario is America's nostalgia for the "good old days" after the closure of the frontier in 1890 and the subsequeny development of Frederick Turner's popular "Frontier Thesis" in 1893. Further, the fact that the Civil War ended decades ago terminates the slave state / free state tensions that barred continued American expansion into Mexico after the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe.

Combine these three elements together: frontier nostalgia, a refutation of Teller Amendment rhetoric, and the realization that continued expansion into Mexico wouldn't make slave states more numerous . . . And we get continued M A N I F E S T D E S T I N Y into the 20th century.

At the very least, that can lead to the USA conquering everything in North America, except perhaps Canada. (The only POD I can think of for Canada is "General Richard Montgomery doesn't die and wins the Battle of Quebec in 1775." Oh well.)
 
Here’s a scenerio, what if the Hawaiian Monarchy never fell, but the Americans annexed the island of Oahu.

To me, Oahu would be the Hong Kong to the Hawaiians: territory that was yours before, only to be stolen by another power

By the mid 19th century Oahu was Hawaii. The other islands paled in importance and power. So if one has Oahu, you've basically already got Hawaii... so why stop with one island?
 
They can always move back to the big island. They moved their capital a lot.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant it wouldn't be economically viable. The harbor at Honolulu was essential. I suppose the plantations could still have shipped through Honolulu even if it were American, but the tarif would have been an issue and in general the actual independence of the Kingdom would have been impacted negatively.

By definition, British protectorates are not independent.

Being a British protectorate would have allowed self-government and eventually, like the OTL other British held Pacific islands, it would have regained full independence post-WWII.
 
OTE="Indicus, post: 17305471, member: 81534"]By definition, British protectorates are not independent.[/QUOTE]
Uhg...NO, they are, in all matters that govern their internal affairs, though their protector probably has an inordinate amount of influence. Externally they will even exercise a degree of independence in dealing with other regional states. Every protectorate is unique in its own way dependant on the individual nature of the relationship with the protecting power, which can evolve over time.
 
Personally,. I don't see why an independent Kdm. Of Hawai'i with Pearl eventually having the same status as Guantanamo, Subic Bay or Limassol could not exist in the aftermath of a failed coup.
 
The problem is that the thread is about Hawaii never getting annexed, so the Kingdom could allow America to annex Oahu, and maybe have control over their government, becoming a protectorate, and not a territory, and later after WWII, gain their independence like the Philippines

Having America still take one of the integral Hawaiian islands just kinda defeats the whole question of "What if Hawaii was never annexed?"
 
Top