Under the Southern Cross we Stand, a sprig of Wattle in our hand

Over a century later this is still a subject of debate.
Yes, very much so.

Perhaps, a situation not so extreme as the mentioned, USS Maine, but perhaps the situation, that the above mentioned Coup attempt or similar kind of incident, would spiral so quickly that somehow both Navies vessels, may have part of their crew on land and get involved, when/if a shooting would happen?
Or, even if, perhaps, less likely, could be happening, that the Australian Captain might be forced to take active measures to protect his ship and crew from either a mob/armed gang attempting to get/harm to the Hawaiian Royals under his watch (sames that are his government guests).
Also, I would guess, that, any possible involvement of the American ship, might be depending, on the American captain's reaction. When/if being asked to support and/or if he would witness that some of his countrymen are in danger/being shot by the Australasian... Now, in the broader context, I think that would be interesting to know, if TTL US and Japan, were able to overcome their foreign policy differences, about China and, if they're, IMO, likely sharing of interests in the Pacific (competition/opposition to Australasian ones), would turn, at least, in a de facto alliance between them...
Yes, it would take a lot to bring the US and Japan together, but the threat of another external power is always the number one motivator for alliances.
 
Quite possible. For that matter, it might even be better from the coup plotters' perspective if the Royal family is seen fleeing to a foreign warship instead of being in prison. She is less likely to attract sympathy if not imprisoned and easier to slander as backed by foreign (non-Hawaiian/non-American) interests when she is taking refuge on a foreign ship.

I think the presence of the two ships will tend to stalemate each other. I doubt very much that either wants to see a shooting incident between US and AP forces.

What will be really interesting is seeing how President Cleveland reacts to this. IIRC in OTL he was disgusted by the plotters and refused their entreaties to join the US. Hawaii didn't become US territory until Mckinley's term in 1898.
Yes, taking refuge on a foreign ships may be counter productive to the native Hawaiian cause.

What you say in regards to Cleveland is very true. Grover Cleveland is only six weeks away from assuming office. He was very much a non expansionist President. Of course, 1898 and the Spanish American war changed all that, but at this time, expansionism was not viewed well domestically in the US.
 
Maybe Hawaii becomes part of the Australasian Protectorate? If so, how does that affect US-AP relations going forward?

Don't think that will happen. Hawaii will compete with Capricornia.
I don't think the AP are that interested, but if they get a formal request, are they going to say no?

What would be an interesting possibility is if this lets Hawaii negotiate a better deal with the US. A US territory is supposed to have a governor and an assembly. While the US government does not recognize hereditary nobility, I wonder if they could set up Hawaii as a territory that is a constitutional monarchy, with the current Queen as the governor? From the Federal government's perspective, she would be a governor not a queen. Hawaii would just have an unusual "election" process for governor. Given the BS of the Jim Crow laws, they might be able to make it fly.
 
I don't think the AP are that interested, but if they get a formal request, are they going to say no?

What would be an interesting possibility is if this lets Hawaii negotiate a better deal with the US. A US territory is supposed to have a governor and an assembly. While the US government does not recognize hereditary nobility, I wonder if they could set up Hawaii as a territory that is a constitutional monarchy, with the current Queen as the governor? From the Federal government's perspective, she would be a governor not a queen. Hawaii would just have an unusual "election" process for governor. Given the BS of the Jim Crow laws, they might be able to make it fly.
Interesting thoughts to be sure.
 

ctayfor

Monthly Donor
I don't think the AP are that interested, but if they get a formal request, are they going to say no?

What would be an interesting possibility is if this lets Hawaii negotiate a better deal with the US. A US territory is supposed to have a governor and an assembly. While the US government does not recognize hereditary nobility, I wonder if they could set up Hawaii as a territory that is a constitutional monarchy, with the current Queen as the governor? From the Federal government's perspective, she would be a governor not a queen. Hawaii would just have an unusual "election" process for governor. Given the BS of the Jim Crow laws, they might be able to make it fly.
Not going to happen for two very strong reasons. The first is ironclad: the US constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. That would apply to territories too (not a good precedent - ask American Samoa). It's not about democracy, at least not directly. The second reason is the prevailing racial attitudes of the time. The US is not even going to consider some kind of exemption, particularly if it would take a constitutional amendment, just to accommodate some brown people.
 
That would apply to territories too
Not necessarily - see the Canal Zone or even the capital.

The key difference from OTL is that Australasia is now an independent nation with its own foreign policy, which wasn't the case then. IOTL Britain was opposed to the Annexation of Hawaii but was neither able nor willing to really do much about it. The following two papers may be useful.
(Page 336 of this paper mentions that "there were even dreamers in America who envisioned an eventual republican brotherhood between the Australian colonies and the United States" which is funny.)

As we know IOTL the Harrison administration was unable to get annexation passed before leaving office. President Cleveland tried to restore Liliuokalani but failed. An independent republic was established which was annexed by President McKinley.

The Hawaiian Republic was not a democracy and opponents to annexation did not have any power. When Japan tried to get its citizens the right to vote in Hawaii, the Republic gave it short shrift; and I suspect any Australasian attempts to get any modicum of influence will meet a similar fate. The Republic did try to negotiate a cable running through Necker Island (which it had annexed in 1894) from Australia to Canada, but because a treaty made under the Kingdom required the United States to approve any future treaty between Hawaii and any third country, it didn't pass, and no cable was built until after annexation.

Clearly even IOTL Australia had expansionist impulses: see Queensland's annexation of the Torres Strait Islands and Papua. These impulses have certainly become more clear ITTL. The Australian-American Convention has already extended the Monroe Doctrine to the North Pacific Ocean, and given Australasia domination over the South Pacific, for over a quarter of a century. The question is just, what does Hawaii have that Capricornia and Fiji don't which they can't get just by trading with it? Hawaii may be far from anything, but California is the closest part of a continental landmass to it.
 

ctayfor

Monthly Donor
Don't forget that in OTL New Zealand's colonial premier "King Dick" Seddon tried to get Britain to annex practically every island in the Pacific west of the Asisn littoral island groups (Japan, Taiwan , Philippines, DEI etc.) including Hawai'i and Tahiti, (essentially all of tropical Polynesia. Melanesia and Micronesia) and place it all under New Zealand jurisdiction. It didn't seem to worry him that this would mean taking on France, Germany and possibly the US, Japan and Chile for some of them. London, of course, told him to stop dreaming. This kind of expansionist sentiment was not unusual in colonial politics of the time.
 
Last edited:

ctayfor

Monthly Donor
Not necessarily - see the Canal Zone or even the capital.
What I meant is that territorial administrations are compatible with republican forms. As I said it is not about democracy. Americans don't believe that democracy can exist without republicanism anyway. They come out in a rash at any suggestion of monarchy. Their foundational national mythology is utterly opposed to it. Look what happened to suggestions of restoring monarchies in Iraq and Afghanistan in this century. The only time that they have supported a monarchical restoration (or retention) was in Japan in 1945 only because they had a realistic appreciation of Japanese reaction if they tried to instal a republic.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that in OTL New Zealand's colonial premier "King Dick" Seddon tried to get Britain to annex practically every island in the Pacific west of the Asisn littoral island groups (Japan, Taiwan , Philippines, DEI etc.) including Hawai'i and Tahiti, (essentially all of tropical Polynesia. Melanesia and Micronesia) and place it all under New Zealand jurisdiction. It didn't seem to worry him that this would mean taking on France, Germany and possibly the US, Japan and Chile for some of them. London, of course, told him to stop dreaming. This kind of expansionist sentiment was not unusual in colonial politics of the time.
I could see australiasia expanding to otl Papua New Guinea and maybe take the whole island and try colonise the Pacific too.
 
I've been working on this map for a little while, and I hope it's accurate to what @johnboy has described. Enjoy!

Australasia.png
 
Last edited:
Top