WI: New Zealand joined the United States

[A Piece of History]

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/new-zealand-could-have-been-part-of-the-united-states/

What if in a world where the American Civil War happened earlier than in OTL (maybe during the Nullification Crisis), New Zealand, for some reason, gained temporary independence from the British, only to join the United States, so the US could benefit from the Otago Gold Rush?

 

[Napoleone the Kiwi]

New Zealand wasn't part of the British Empire until 1840 with the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi). Before that, it is the United Tribes of New Zealand and largely run by the indigenous Māori chiefs. The settler populations were largely concentrated on coastal settlements and are mostly British with Māori typically living nearby for trade. Should NZ join the USA, it will be a very different affair (working with the nullification crisis POD) to the annexation by Britain (considering it took a solid 60 years to fully subjugate anti-Crown Māori).

As the Mexican-American War will likely be delayed considering the USA will be recovering from an earlier Civil War, the acquisition of NZ will be rather difficult without California and the US pacific coast. Should the USA succeed in convincing local chiefs to sign on (and Pakeha settlers who are largely British) NZ likely would be the only native majority state in the Union and will definitely change how the USA treats the indigenous nations in the mainland. Due to the difficulty in getting to NZ from Atlantic Ports (until the pacific coast is taken from Mexico) Māori populations probably won't nosedive with the constant wars and disease outbreaks that occurred before, during and after the signing of Te Tiriti.

As Māori population swells, the various unification movements might end up butting heads (there likely won't be a Māori King movement since it was devised as a method of direct negotiation with Queen Victoria monarch to monarch) so you'd see the United Tribes continuing to govern most of New Zealand as the State Government (with a second State Government set up in the South Island since settlers had less competition due to lower Māori populations on that island.) Tribal affiliations will remain prominent without the British invasions (unless the Americans organise something worse) but the logistics of an American campaign are a bit more difficult without a large base of operations to support American invasion (India supplied 20,000 troops via Australia to fight in the NZ Wars.)

Possible independence when decolonisation occurs for Hawaii as well, which may also remain a native majority state with close relations with the Māori in NZ. If the British lose NZ, its possible Hawaii may end up a British possession or perhaps a colony. Decolonisation and the large native populations will see these places being untenable to hold without the loyalty of native populations or extensive occupation and brutal repression.

Very interesting timeline for the pacific.

 

[AltoRegnant]

.

As Māori population swells, the various unification movements might end up butting heads (there likely won't be a Māori King movement since it was devised as a method of direct negotiation with Queen Victoria monarch to monarch) so you'd see the United Tribes continuing to govern most of New Zealand as the State Government (with a second State Government set up in the South Island since settlers had less competition due to lower Māori populations on that island.) Tribal affiliations will remain prominent without the British invasions (unless the Americans organise something worse) but the logistics of an American campaign are a bit more difficult without a large base of operations to support American invasion (India supplied 20,000 troops via Australia to fight in the NZ Wars.)

Possible independence when decolonisation occurs for Hawaii as well, which may also remain a native majority state with close relations with the Māori in NZ. If the British lose NZ, its possible Hawaii may end up a British possession or perhaps a colony. Decolonisation and the large native populations will see these places being untenable to hold without the loyalty of native populations or extensive occupation and brutal repression.

Very interesting timeline for the pacific.

If it becomes a state, then I dont buy that independence would be on the table. Especially since decolonization was used as a tool to paint the us as better than britain or france, not an ethics thing. and the states of NZ and Hawaii would get much the same propaganda as the mainland, regardless of their demographics

 

[kernals12]

One thing that cannot be overstated is the extreme difficulty of governing a territory that is on the other side of the world in a time before jet aircraft (or any sort of aircraft) or easy means of communication. It would take weeks for New Zealand's congressmen to travel to and from Washington. Sending letters there would be tremendously expensive for the Post Office, perhaps forcing them to send all messages by telegraph.

 

[Napoleone the Kiwi]

If it becomes a state, then I dont buy that independence would be on the table. Especially since decolonization was used as a tool to paint the us as better than britain or france, not an ethics thing. and the states of NZ and Hawaii would get much the same propaganda as the mainland, regardless of their demographics

If it becomes a state, yes. I think I forgot to mention they would likely be made territories in my first post. Hawaii was on the decolonisation list, after all, it was only because Pearl Harbour happened there that the USA just made it a state, outright.

Also, NZ and Hawaii as states would potentially be native majority. It doesn't matter what propaganda you're being told at school if your family raises you differently, especially since, as I said, Māori wouldn't be having all their economic assets seized and their communal societal structures destroyed through warfare and social erosion. You vastly underestimate the effect of culture considering Māori would be working on very different axioms to Pakeha Americans, and likely would be in charge of their own education systems in this instance, the Constitution and myths of the Founding Fathers will have little sway considering Māori have their own cultural foundation myths from far before the Founding of the USA.

While the British Pakeha settlers likely will have their own issues of living under the USA, many may choose to move to Australia, further increasing Māori demographic power and weakening US leverage, especially since they may find that the USA that annexes NZ won't be capable of the power-projection to protect their interests from either Māori incursion or foreign invasion (especially since a French colonisation plan was in the works, should the USA take NZ, it may not be enough to prevent the French colonisation mission considering the British had the threat of the Royal Navy, while the USA does not.)

 

[AltoRegnant]

If it becomes a state, yes. I think I forgot to mention they would likely be made territories in my first post. Hawaii was on the decolonisation list, after all, it was only because Pearl Harbour happened there that the USA just made it a state, outright.

Also, NZ and Hawaii as states would potentially be native majority. It doesn't matter what propaganda you're being told at school if your family raises you differently, especially since, as I said, Māori wouldn't be having all their economic assets seized and their communal societal structures destroyed through warfare and social erosion. You vastly underestimate the effect of culture considering Māori would be working on very different axioms to Pakeha Americans, and likely would be in charge of their own education systems in this instance, the Constitution and myths of the Founding Fathers will have little sway considering Māori have their own cultural foundation myths from far before the Founding of the USA.

While the British Pakeha settlers likely will have their own issues of living under the USA, many may choose to move to Australia, further increasing Māori demographic power and weakening US leverage, especially since they may find that the USA that annexes NZ won't be capable of the power-projection to protect their interests from either Māori incursion or foreign invasion (especially since a French colonisation plan was in the works, should the USA take NZ, it may not be enough to prevent the French colonisation mission considering the British had the threat of the Royal Navy, while the USA does not.)

Fair enough, culture, historical or otherwise, is not my strong suit. though honestly I think it would gain statehood eventually- too many markets opened up in the south Pacific, and if manifest destiny still happens per otl, if a bit later because of the early civil war, then there's going to be enough white settlers to petition for statehood, and that's if the later manifest destiny doesn't take a more white man's burdy tone because of shifts in the European cultures that immigrate and trickle to america. Though I would assume that NZ and Hawaii would at least retain a plurality of natives. If it still doesnt gain statehood through all that? Pearl harbor and the japanese attack could probably lead to America statifying it to organize fortifications better.

Frankly I'm curious about how this would effect American culture, if polynesians are integrated into the fabric of society. I imagine that the food would be more well known and enjoyed, and people would generally be more familiar with the mythos, but again, I'm not the best at cultural nuance.

 

[Dan1988]

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/new-zealand-could-have-been-part-of-the-united-states/

What if in a world where the American Civil War happened earlier than in OTL (maybe during the Nullification Crisis), New Zealand, for some reason, gained temporary independence from the British, only to join the United States, so the US could benefit from the Otago Gold Rush?

I once considered doing a TL with part of a similar premise (though not necessarily joining the US), with the idea being that colonization of the North Island would be a knock-on effect of extending the ABCFM's Sandwich Islands mission, as a consequence of the expansion of New England's whaling industry. (Which was basically a mission of the Congregationalist church which helped form modern Hawai‘i as we know it today.) Since Mâori and Hawaiian are languages which are similar enough as fellow Polynesian languages, the ABCFM's mission there would employ interpreters who natively spoke Hawaiian as intermediaries between the missionaries and the Mâori. How that would work I do not know, but it would definitely mean that the societies of the major islands within New Zealand would begin to diverge, including the use of different dialects of English (if the British arrive from Australia and elsewhere as per OTL) making the North Island sound more like Hawai‘i or the US Northeast and the South Island much like now or closer to Australian English.

 

[Dave Shoup]

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/new-zealand-could-have-been-part-of-the-united-states/What if in a world where the American Civil War happened earlier than in OTL (maybe during the Nullification Crisis), New Zealand, for some reason, gained temporary independence from the British, only to join the United States, so the US could benefit from the Otago Gold Rush?

The US has never shown any real interest in territories south of the Equator becoming states (which your use of the verb "to join" suggests), or even placing them on the legal "unorganized territory to organized Territory (capital "t") to statehood" path. American Samoa is the only populated territory (small "t") of any significance in the Southern Hemisphere, and it has always been (in a legal sense) an unincorporated territory.

The point being, the territorial expansion of the US, although obviously huge from 1783 onward, was always defined by recognizable strategic realities. New Zealand was more likely to become part of Australia or even Chile or Peru than the US.

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't think it's as implausible as some may think. "The USA hasn't shown interest in [x]" isn't an argument, since it is inherently rooted in confirmation bias. That is: the USA wasn't interest in [x] in OTL, for OTL-specific reasons. Change the specifics, and you change the outcome. We must as: was there a reason why the USA was never interested in gaining territory south of the equator? Some kind of aversion against it? Nope. It was just that no plausible candidates came up in OTL.

Distance isn't an argument, either. By that reasoning, Britain shouldn't be able to control New Zealand either. If it can be a British colony, it can also be a US territory-- and later on, a state (an evolution that I see going hand-in-hand with the development and larhe-scale use of reliable oceanic steam ships; the decreased travel time would make statehood so realistic as to become an inevitable desire).

Now, as to the premise: an earlier Civil War messes with the Mexican-American War, and thus with the USA gaining California-- which in turn severely limits the USA's ability to project any kind of naval power in the Pacific. Bad POD for getting this done, I'd say! Have an alternative: the nullification crisis escalates, South Carolina secedes. Andrew Jackson marches in, has things sorted out within a month, and in the process secedes Calhoun's head from his body. After this utter failure of a secession, the matter becomes a very embarrasing episode, and nobody sane will ever urge secession again. (And in fact, an amendment making it explicitly illegal is passed.)

The Mexican-American War goes through on schedule. With the issue of the South being very vocal about all sorts of things very decisively shut down for the time being, the USA is rather less tied up in the kinds of domestic troubles and compromising that marked this era in OTL. More attention can go to foreign affairs. Expansion was quite popular with comsiderable segments of the populace (and, somewhat more importantly, of the elite) in both North and South. But war over bits of Canada was considered insane by anyone... well, sane... and expansion into the Caribbean was too evidently a ploy to get the Southern slavocrats what they wanted (to the benefit of exactly no-one else).

So, New Zealand. That's actually not so crazy an idea. With the USA now having prime real estate on the Pacific coast, there will be interest in Pacific ventures. Initially of an economic nature, and then perhaps of a more geo-political bent. Just go with OTL as described in the OP's article, but with a USA that's not going to have a Civil War (at least not in the 1860s), and that has been somewhat more interested in foreign operations over the past two decades.

As a result, the OTL expectations just come true. Lots of americans settle in New Zealand, they soon form the majority, and they move for independence, followed by some kind of association with the USA. After this, even more Americans pour in, New Zealand is made a territory, and it retains both its large number of American inhabitants and its territorial status. About two decades later, it achieves statehood.

 

[Dave Shoup]

I don't think it's as implausible as some may think. "The USA hasn't shown interest in [x]" isn't an argument, since it is inherently rooted in confirmation bias. That is: the USA wasn't interest in [x] in OTL, for OTL-specific reasons. Change the specifics, and you change the outcome. We must ask: was there a reason why the USA was never interested in gaining territory south of the equator?

Specifically? Yes, in terms of New Zealand. The US had plenty of sheep. Doesn't need any more mutton or wool. It would be a baaad strategy...

More seriously, nation states make policy to advance and sustain their recognized strategic priorities. These may be mistaken, of course, but they do exist. The strategic reality multiple generations of US policy makers have faced since 1776 was to create a nation state large enough to avoid any foreign challenges at "home," meaning within North America or (as technology advanced) the Western Hemisphere. Territorial growth south of the equator, by definition (beyond the transitory technical needs of coaling bases, cable stations, or what have you), does not in any significant way advance that strategic reality; in fact, pursuing such a policy would only cost resources far beyond anything gained by such a policy.

 

[Skallagrim]

Specifically? Yes, in terms of New Zealand. The US had plenty of sheep. Doesn't need any more mutton or wool. It would be a baaad strategy...

More seriously, nation states make policy to advance and sustain their recognized strategic priorities. These may be mistaken, of course, but they do exist. The strategic reality multiple generations of US policy makers have faced since 1776 was to create a nation state large enough to avoid any foreign challenges at "home," meaning within North America or (as technology advanced) the Western Hemisphere. Territorial growth south of the equator, by definition (beyond the transitory technical needs of coaling bases, cable stations, or what have you), does not in any significant way advance that strategic reality; in fact, pursuing such a policy would only cost resources far beyond anything gained by such a policy.

Your entire line of reasoning presupposes that nations are coherent entitities that exist as "being of one mind", and can in fact "think" and "plan". Nothing is further from the truth. We are dealing here not with a monolithic entity, but with a vast, teeming collection of individual people, who form disparate and flutuating factions, cliques and parties-- which in turn pursue their own interests and (where possible) seek to employ the apparatus of the state in aiding those various interests. (Interests that are often at odds, and which all claim to fully overlap with the "national interest", but which in practice rarely do.) Nor should these particular interests be mistaken for universally rational motives. For instance: one of the central motivations for many colonial ventures in the second half of the 19th century was that nebulous yet shimmering prize-- prestige. Case in point: Germany would have been far better off without pursuing any colonies at all, but there were those who desired "a place in the sun". This pursuit cost money, made enemies, and begot no actual gains. To an extent, late 19th century and early 20th century US imperialism was underpinned by similar non-rational motivations, often combined with the particular economic interests of very small elites.

In short: your view is based on nations having a concrete and coherent "national interest", and more importantly, the ability to consciously pursue it. This is not at all the case. Jingoism, pride, prestige, and the economic interests of a few wealthy investors in the Pacific trade and/or some ventures in New Zealand... that would be, by itself, reason enough to make this thing happen. And whether it is in the nation's rational interest matters not one iota. People can't even agree on what the nation's interest is.

 

[Jared]

Specifically? Yes, in terms of New Zealand. The US had plenty of sheep. Doesn't need any more mutton or wool. It would be a baaad strategy...

On the other hand, this was the time when ironclads were just being worked out. Navies still thought that ramming was the best way to use ironclads. And New Zealand had plenty of rams.

 

[Jared]

Despite the Gizmodo article, there was never a serious prospect of NZ joining the US of A. This was because of a simple reason: Britain has been claiming NZ since 1788, and had no interest in relinquishing that claim.

Contrary to the article, Britain had been claiming New Zealand since 1788 (not 1840). NZ was first considered part of the colony of New South Wales. The Treaty of Waitangi did not mark the time when Britain had claimed New Zealand, it marked when the Maori acknowledged (some level of) the British claim on sovereignty. British interest in New Zealand considerably pre-dated 1840.

It's also worth pointing out that while Britain largely left New Zealand alone for a few decades after 1788 (though not entirely), they become very active very fast as soon as any other colonial power showed any interest. When it appeared that France might take an interest in New Zealand in the 1830s, a British resident was despatched there very quickly. The negotiations which followed from that were what led to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Britain adopted a similar practice in Australia as well when it seemed that France might try to settle parts of the continent, too. (That was why Western Australia was founded).

So Britain would have Views about the USA trying to claim New Zealand. I can't see the USA caring enough to try to force the issue when it's a place far away and regarded as well within Britain's sphere of influence. And even if the USA did care to try, Britain was far better able to project power there than the USA would be.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Your entire line of reasoning presupposes that nations are coherent entitities that exist as "being of one mind", and can in fact "think" and "plan". Nothing is further from the truth. We are dealing here not with a monolithic entity, but with a vast, teeming collection of individual people, who form disparate and flutuating factions, cliques and parties-- which in turn pursue their own interests and (where possible) seek to employ the apparatus of the state in aiding those various interests. (Interests that are often at odds, and which all claim to fully overlap with the "national interest", but which in practice rarely do.) Nor should these particular interests be mistaken for universally rational motives. For instance: one of the central motivations for many colonial ventures in the second half of the 19th century was that nebulous yet shimmering prize-- prestige. Case in point: Germany would have been far better off without pursuing any colonies at all, but there were those who desired "a place in the sun". This pursuit cost money, made enemies, and begot no actual gains. To an extent, late 19th century and early 20th century US imperialism was underpinned by similar non-rational motivations, often combined with the particular economic interests of very small elites. In short: your view is based on nations having a concrete and coherent "national interest", and more importantly, the ability to consciously pursue it. This is not at all the case. Jingoism, pride, prestige, and the economic interests of a few wealthy investors in the Pacific trade and/or some ventures in New Zealand... that would be, by itself, reason enough to make this thing happen. And whether it is in the nation's rational interest matters not one iota. People can't even agree on what the nation's interest is.

In general, so saeth Mr Temple:

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests ... We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."

Specifically, so saeth Mr. Adams:

"America does not need go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Please find some examples of American elites, acting in the democratic marketplace of ideas, pre-1900 or even post-1900, necessary to gain a change in US government policy, and arguing the US needed to annex territory south of the equator. If you can find them, read up on the reception they received.

We'll wait.

Heck, find an example of "a few wealthy (US) investors in the Pacific trade and/or some ventures in New Zealand."

I know it's alternative history, but the OP set up a fairly specific POD, and it didn't involve Wihelmine Germany, which had very little in common with the Nineteenth Century United States.

 

[Dave Shoup]

On the other hand, this was the time when ironclads were just being worked out. Navies still thought that ramming was the best way to use ironclads. And New Zealand had plenty of rams.

Ewe had to go there, didn't ewe?

Undoubtedly, but presumably they were already scared enough by Wal and Cooch. They didn't need any help...

 

[Skallagrim]

snip

You are again going by a confirmation bias. "Things are like this in OTL, and therefore..."

But OTL is OTL and an ATL is not OTL; I don't have to find OTL examples of something to prove that it can happen in an ATL. I only need to demonstrate that interests and motivations can change in order to make that thing feasible under changed circumstances. I have already done so.

Your fairly condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since you haven't actually fielded much in the way of arguments. Anyone can quote some OTL people. I can quote some US leaders insisting that the USA (which spends vastly more on its military than anyone else on Earth) has no need for standing armies and should at all costs avoid them. Clearly, such words are no more than wind, and things can change rather dramatically.

Anyway, I've made my case, and if OTL determinism is your thing, I'm not going to argue it with you any further. There may well be solid arguments against the premise, but your overly deterministic line of reasoning doesn't fall in that category.

 

[Dave Shoup]

You are again going by a confirmation bias. "Things are like this in OTL, and therefore..." But OTL is OTL and an ATL is not OTL; I don't have to find OTL examples of something to prove that it can happen in an ATL. I only need to demonstrate that interests and motivations can change in order to make that thing feasible under changed circumstances. I have already done so. Your fairly condescending tone is utterly misplaced, since you haven't actually fielded much in the way of arguments. Anyone can quote some OTL people. I can quote some US leaders insisting that the USA (which spends vastly more on its military than anyone else on Earth) has no need for standing armies and should at all costs avoid them. Clearly, such words are no more than wind, and things can change rather dramatically. Anyway, I've made my case, and if OTL determinism is your thing, I'm not going to argue it with you any further. There may well be solid arguments against the premise, but your overly deterministic line of reasoning doesn't fall in that category.

The evidence of history is not an argument; it is evidence. If that's not acceptable, good move withdrawing from the field.

So saeth Prof. Sandburg:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

 

[Skallagrim]

snip

You are asking for "evidence" that exists in a hypothetical ATL. We are on an alternate history board.

Get over yourself, and please learn to debate in a more decent manner.

 

[Dave Shoup]

You are asking for "evidence" that exists in a hypothetical ATL. We are on an alternate history board. Get over yourself, and please learn to debate in a more decent manner.

Debate generally involves evidence, as opposed to opinion.

 

[Skallagrim]

Debate generally involves evidence, as opposed to opinion.

No, debate involves the application of logical reasoning to known facts. If you cannot grasp that a change in circumstance will also change the particulars, then you have failed at the application of logic.

Basically, if you use "evidence" from OTL, inevitably produced by the circumstances of OTL, you can only use that as an argument pertaining to the ATL situation if you also demonstrate that (and why) the facts you are citing would still hold up in the different situation.

You have not done so. You have just blindly assumed that the particulars will be unchanging. That is the problem. And now we are really done, unless you should be ready to apologise for your misplaced arrogance.