Hawaii

What if Hawaii had not been annexed by the US?

President Grover Cleveland refused to ann

ex the country, McKinley did.

What if McKinley did not?

Would the Monarchy reclaim control?

Could it survive as a independant Republic?

In either case would it have remained an US ally?

Would their have been any serious effects until WWII?

Could an allied, but independant Hawaii have made a play for Micronesia in the 80s?
 
Well, your POD is significantly after the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. Had annexation been refused, then the oligarchic and white dominated Republic of Hawaii would have continued to exist. The Republic would just wait around for eventual annexation, tho it most likely would enter into some 'commonwealth' arrangement to secure access to the American market for goods from Hawaii. The US would still have access to Pearl Harbor.

Should the ATL develop as per OTL until the late 1930s its most likely possible that annexation and statehood may come by the late 1940s and early 1950s because of the Pacific War.

Hawaii would be very close to American South in its racial division and tension. There probably would be a fairly active socialist party.
 
If annexation was specifically refused, as in implying that the USA opposed the actions of the businessmen who overthrew the monarchy, wouldn't it be likely that the UK would step in to restore the monarchy, whom they were on good terms with, and probably implement a protectorate to ensure that another such revolution didn't reoccur?
 
If annexation was specifically refused, as in implying that the USA opposed the actions of the businessmen who overthrew the monarchy, wouldn't it be likely that the UK would step in to restore the monarchy, whom they were on good terms with, and probably implement a protectorate to ensure that another such revolution didn't reoccur?

Not likely. The British, IIRC, never quite acknowledge the overthrow, but there was an agreement - a gentlemen's agreement of sorts - that the British recognized that Hawaii fell within America's sphere of influence. The US is going to keep its base in Pearl Harbor and will have Hawaii 'closely aligned' with it.
 
Hawaii could never have held onto its independence, the kingdom was militarily weak, its population too small and its location too important. If the United States hadn't annexed Hawaii, someone else would have snapped the islands up.
 
If the United States hadn't annexed Hawaii, someone else would have snapped the islands up.

Well they sure are tasty. Perhaps its possible for them to have been kept as a territory, either UK or US, and them gain independence in the post-WWII era. Would require less influence from whitey though...
 
Well, your POD is significantly after the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. Had annexation been refused, then the oligarchic and white dominated Republic of Hawaii would have continued to exist. The Republic would just wait around for eventual annexation, tho it most likely would enter into some 'commonwealth' arrangement to secure access to the American market for goods from Hawaii. The US would still have access to Pearl Harbor.

Should the ATL develop as per OTL until the late 1930s its most likely possible that annexation and statehood may come by the late 1940s and early 1950s because of the Pacific War.

Hawaii would be very close to American South in its racial division and tension. There probably would be a fairly active socialist party.


Earlier statehood than OTL because of later annexation?

Could likely lead to a strong seccession movement.

Thought about the socialist party, if strong enought could effect US's thought on Puerto Rico's future.
 
Hawaii could never have held onto its independence, the kingdom was militarily weak, its population too small and its location too important. If the United States hadn't annexed Hawaii, someone else would have snapped the islands up.

Not at all true. Had Hawaii remained independent until 1900 or so it is likely that its independence would have been maintained. There is a cut off, of sorts, with 1900 pretty much being the end of the imperial land grabs around the world. Aside from the United States, there is - realistically - no other imperial power that would annex Hawaii. Japan frequently comes up as s likely candidate, but there are a host of problems that kept the Japanese concentrated on dominating the Far East.
 
Not at all true. Had Hawaii remained independent until 1900 or so it is likely that its independence would have been maintained. There is a cut off, of sorts, with 1900 pretty much being the end of the imperial land grabs around the world. Aside from the United States, there is - realistically - no other imperial power that would annex Hawaii. Japan frequently comes up as s likely candidate, but there are a host of problems that kept the Japanese concentrated on dominating the Far East.

Perhaps just a couple of years pass and the Republic is forced to start taking care of various state responsiblities, ie defense, trade, money, ect. then you get a good sized segment of the elite with a vested interest in maintaining their positions, and thus independance.

Probably still a good deal of support for annexation, but perhaps they can negiotate access to the American market in exchange for basing rights. Not that they would likely want to try to eject the Navy even if they wanted to, but does not stike me as totally unlikely.

Later on when this start to heat up, pre-WWII, they can push for more, perhaps significant rent.

I kind of like the idea of local forces being subsidized in exchange for contributing to base security. I can't see to much more of a role than that.

Except perhaps allowing expatriot Americans or their decendants to enlist, similarly to the deal with phlipinos.
 
Top