WI: New Zealand Annexed into the United States?

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/new-zealand-could-have-been-part-of-the-united-states-1791602740
...there was a brief period in the 19th century when it looked like New Zealand might join the United States. And there were a lot of perfectly logical reasons for it.

New Zealand became a British colony in 1841, but white emigration to the island nation, which was inhabited by the native Maori people, didn’t really surge until gold was discovered in 1861. The gold rush saw New Zealand’s population explode in the 1860s from roughly 99,000 at the start of the decade to 256,000 by 1871. The gold rush brought plenty of Californians, and the colony became inundated with a relatively small but rowdy bunch of Americans who didn’t acknowledge any allegiance to the United Kingdom.

As historian Gerald Horne explains in the 2007 book The White Pacific, “When gold was discovered in Otago in 1861, it was the New Zealanders who attracted attention from California to the point where there was very temporary talk of New Zealand becoming a part of the United States. In both England and New Zealand it was widely believed that an independent New Zealand would gravitate toward the U.S. sphere.”

If the small colony of New Zealand had sought independence from Britain in the 1860s or 70s, Americans could well be calling it a territory, or even a state. After all, there were just 33 American states in 1860.
So, if New Zealand joined USA in 1860s-1870s how would it reflect on geopolitics in the Pacific Ocean? What impact would it have on relations with the British Empire? What about relations with Australia?
 
I could see a post-1900 scenario.

Consider a WWII that goes much worse for the Allies in the Pacific. Japan manages to occupy New Zealand as naval base before ultimately removed by an eventually victorious West. In the battle to recapture NZ, because Allied gunfire and Japanese "scorched Earth" efforts, New Zealand's infrastructure is greatly destroyed, along with most of its population being killed.

Britain's economy is toast from the War, so the US takes on the effort to rebuild NZ (along with efforts in Germany, Japan, Singapore, etc.). All goes generally well, and relations grow close during the reconstruction. Ultimately, some sort of political union is suggested and approved.
 
Eventual home rule and independence. Present me any transoceanic union that has not a big homeland one side and a small island on the other.
 
The problem is that there's no reason for New Zealand to gain independence in that period. The colony is still dependent on British and Australian troops to put down various resisting Iwi, for one thing. The suppression of the Maori required a serious commitment of resources- why would the USA send thousands of men and ships to islands on the other side of the world with no resources that can't be found more conveniently at home?
To say nothing of course that carving off a British settler colony would mean war with Britain, which in the 1860s would be a serious problem for a nation that was in the middle of a civil war.
 
Eventual home rule and independence. Present me any transoceanic union that has not a big homeland one side and a small island on the other.
In addition to the already-mentioned example of the US and Hawaii:

France and Réunion;

Portugal and the Azores;

Denmark and Greenland;

The Netherlands and the BES Islands;

The UK and Ascension Island, the Falklands, etc;

Spain and Ceuta and Melilla.
 
Eventual home rule and independence. Present me any transoceanic union that has not a big homeland one side and a small island on the other.

France and its various islands, especially the more distant ones like Réunion, French Polynesia, and even New Caledonia, comes to mind.
 
In addition to the already-mentioned example of the US and Hawaii:

France and Réunion;

Portugal and the Azores;

Denmark and Greenland;

The Netherlands and the BES Islands;

The UK and Ascension Island, the Falklands, etc;

Spain and Ceuta and Melilla.
Comparing apples and oranges. You seem also to not have accurately read what I´ve written, given you listed small islands examples(and Greenland is just small in its population and is basically semi-independent in a way) and also not really transoceanic.

Reunion is the only one that really fits and is still far from New Zealand given New Zealand has more resources, is bigger in size and has a bigger population itself.

The Azores is such a bad example, they are not that far from Portugal at all.

Greenland is basically very autonomous and has low population.

The Dutch Caribbean have low population.

The UK colonies have low population

Ceuta and Melilla are not far at all.

France and its various islands, especially the more distant ones like Réunion, French Polynesia, and even New Caledonia, comes to mind.
Those are still small, in size more than relative population. They are not as self independent.

The US and Hawaii?
New Zealand is 3 times as far and 3 time as popolous than the Hawaii(and 9 times as big), I guess that if you leave it with a small population that could work, but who would do it?
 
Last edited:
Reunion is the only one that really fits and is still far from New Zealand given New Zealand has more resources, is bigger in size and has a bigger population itself.

New Zealand is 3 times as far and 3 time as popolous than the Hawaii(and 9 times as big), I guess that if you leave it with a small population that could work, but who would do it?

Whether you look at physical area or population, there are still comparable situations to a hypothetical U.S.-controlled New Zealand.

If we're going by area, then Alaska and Greenland are both examples of very large overseas territories.

If we're going by population, then Réunion has 1.3% of the population of France and New Zealand has 1.4% of the population of the USA. Virtually identical.

So, in other words, there's definitely precedent for a large overseas territory remaining with its mother country. I'll admit that my other examples of British and Dutch overseas territories aren't particularly relevant here, though.

My prediction for the scenario in the OP is that North Island and South Island would each become a US state, and remain that way to the present day. One interesting consequence of this might be that New Zealand ends up on the other side of the date line ITTL– i.e. UTC-12 instead of UTC+12.
 
Whether you look at physical area or population, there are still comparable situations to a hypothetical U.S.-controlled New Zealand.

If we're going by area, then Alaska and Greenland are both examples of very large overseas territories.

If we're going by population, then Réunion has 1.3% of the population of France and New Zealand has 1.4% of the population of the USA. Virtually identical.

So, in other words, there's definitely precedent for a large overseas territory remaining with its mother country. I'll admit that my other examples of British and Dutch overseas territories aren't particularly relevant here, though.

My prediction for the scenario in the OP is that North Island and South Island would each become a US state, and remain that way to the present day. One interesting consequence of this might be that New Zealand ends up on the other side of the date line ITTL– i.e. UTC-12 instead of UTC+12.
You should taking them together, because the different measures stack on top of one another, obviously a island very small would be quite less economic independent, same goes for a big landmass with little population.

Reunion is still 800k on 2500km, is FAR from what New Zealand is.

Alaska has lower population and is more near.

Greenland like I said is already semi-independent and still has crap population.


There is no precedent if you apply accurate comparisons.
 
However the population of New Zealand back then was far lower. There is also Puerto Rico whose population is much more comparable to New Zealand.
I don´t think it will get independence outright, but think about it. The earlier you go the more time it takes to reach New Zealand physically, even 3 months I´d say. How do you avoid getting an independence there if the population reaches historical levels?
 
To say nothing of course that carving off a British settler colony would mean war with Britain, which in the 1860s would be a serious problem for a nation that was in the middle of a civil war.

Even afterwards, trying to take and hold a colony on the other side of an ocean against the world's foremost naval power would be a difficult undertaking. I don't think America could plausibly take New Zealand until after WW1, by which time it would be too late to integrate it.
 
The US and Hawaii?

Hawaii is a strategic port in the Pacific. New Zealand is, well we're not that strategic unless you are really interested in Antarctica.

Britain was all over the country by 1840's, the Crown having signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori, securing the nation within the British sphere. The culture that developed was also very British and had strong a strong affinity to the motherland. I can't even see where the US would enter following that, it's not like they can invade from all the way across the Pacific nor can I ever conceive why they'd want to. Britain need to be out of the picture or a much earlier POD needs to be found.
 
Top