Kingdom of Hawaii

almost every Timleine i see, either Hawaii is overrun by the Japanese in WWII, it stays in british hands, or otherwise controlled by someone.

so, is there any point in OTL where Hawaii could either Remain The Kingdom of Hawaii, or otherwise become independent?

I see a slight possiblitiy Under King Kamehameha I, shortly after he conquers the Hawaiian island Chain, in roughly 1810, but it's unlikely at best.

any ideas?
 
There are quite a few ATL Hawaii's on the website. I think they occur about once a year. Besides myself there are another two or three posters - one from Whittier, California and the from Honolulu, that are pretty fluent in Hawaiian history.
 
what are they under? which catagory?

Most are in the Before 1900 discussion board. Try doing a search with 'kingdom', 'Hawaii','independent'.

There is an AH book on the market, at least in Hawaii, that has Hawaii becoming independent from the US by 1950. The bulk of it is Hawaii being occupied by the Japanese in 1941 and finally liberated in 1944 or 45 (I can't remember now). There are a series of nonviolent protests against the US and Hawaii is finally given its independence. That is the only post-1900 independence story I've heard of.
 
The Hawaiians just weren't strong or numerous enough, or technologically advanced enough, to keep their independence. And the islands' location is too strategic for outside powers to overlook. If the United States didn't have a naval base at Pearl Harbor, someone else probably would.
Of course, maintaining a naval base doesn't necessarily mean you have to annex the islands. I can see an alternate timeline where the Americans, British, or Japanese lease Pearl Harbor for the use of their Pacific fleet, but Hawaii keeps its independence.
We treated the Hawaiians pretty badly, I think, and the Filipinos even worse. Simply walking away from these territories was out of the question: someone else would have occupied them. But I could argue that we should have recognized their independence, but kept bases at Pearl Harbor and Subic Bay, for our own benefit, and to keep other empires out.
 
In the 1840's the US could have joined with Britain and France in recognizing Hawaiian independence and pledging never to annex or take possession of the kingdom.
 
In the 1840's the US could have joined with Britain and France in recognizing Hawaiian independence and pledging never to annex or take possession of the kingdom.

There was a 'treaty' of sorts that Hawaii did negotiate between itself and the US, Britain and France. However, by the 1890s, things in the Pacific - and especially in the United States - have changed.
 
The key is preventing the American colonists from getting too powerful. Did Kalakaua any serious attempt to oppose the "bayonet constitution" in the 1880s?
 
The key is preventing the American colonists from getting too powerful. Did Kalakaua any serious attempt to oppose the "bayonet constitution" in the 1880s?

There was Robert Wilcox's attempt counter revolt, but unfortunately all military power rested with the missionary dominated cabinet. The bayonet constitution turned Kalakaua into a figure head monarch. There is some speculation that he may have known about Wilcox's plans to seize the Palace and launch a counter-coup but he wasn't able to do anything.
 
It has been suggested that with no Napoleon, the French Revolution would cause Europe to plunge into a longer, drawn-out war. So Britain and the others would be too pre-occupied to care about Hawaii.
Also, in the 1780s the US breaks up into multiple squabbling nations.
 
Top