|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Dec 22, 2019 22:19:03 GMT
Briefly, Hawaiians are far better off under Spain or Britain's rule than US, but likely far worse under Russia.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 23, 2019 4:06:40 GMT
Briefly, Hawaiians are far better off under Spain or Britain's rule than US, but likely far worse under Russia. Of the two, British rule is the best option i guess. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Dec 23, 2019 10:59:44 GMT
Briefly, Hawaiians are far better off under Spain or Britain's rule than US, but likely far worse under Russia. Of the two, British rule is the best option i guess.
Well it kind of happened at one point, Paulet_affair, but that was an action by a rogue officer who was quickly overridden by his superiors. However there are ways for the islands to come under British control even after the coup by the US planters although earlier is far more likely. Anything from a retribution mission for the murder of Captain Cook - although I doubt that would be likely - to say occupying the region during a Trent War conflict or simply Britain developing a stronger commercial interest in the region.
Japan was possibly another option given the number of Japanese immigrants that came to the islands and Japanese concern about the take over by the planters. Think we discussed it here a few months ago when there were signs that Japan considered intervening to support a restoration of the monarchy. However can't find that using the search as any mention the thread using the search so it might have been on the naval site I used. Although a quick attempt at a search there also brought up nothing.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 23, 2019 15:14:50 GMT
Of the two, British rule is the best option i guess. Well it kind of happened at one point, Paulet_affair, but that was an action by a rogue officer who was quickly overridden by his superiors. However there are ways for the islands to come under British control even after the coup by the US planters although earlier is far more likely. Anything from a retribution mission for the murder of Captain Cook - although I doubt that would be likely - to say occupying the region during a Trent War conflict or simply Britain developing a stronger commercial interest in the region. Japan was possibly another option given the number of Japanese immigrants that came to the islands and Japanese concern about the take over by the planters. Think we discussed it here a few months ago when there were signs that Japan considered intervening to support a restoration of the monarchy. However can't find that using the search as any mention the thread using the search so it might have been on the naval site I used. Although a quick attempt at a search there also brought up nothing.
Well we also have the: What if,Japanese-American War (The 1897 Hawai’i Crisis)And. What if: Russian Hawaii
But never heard of the Paulet affair. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Dec 24, 2019 13:40:46 GMT
Well it kind of happened at one point, Paulet_affair, but that was an action by a rogue officer who was quickly overridden by his superiors. However there are ways for the islands to come under British control even after the coup by the US planters although earlier is far more likely. Anything from a retribution mission for the murder of Captain Cook - although I doubt that would be likely - to say occupying the region during a Trent War conflict or simply Britain developing a stronger commercial interest in the region. Japan was possibly another option given the number of Japanese immigrants that came to the islands and Japanese concern about the take over by the planters. Think we discussed it here a few months ago when there were signs that Japan considered intervening to support a restoration of the monarchy. However can't find that using the search as any mention the thread using the search so it might have been on the naval site I used. Although a quick attempt at a search there also brought up nothing.
Well we also have the: What if,Japanese-American War (The 1897 Hawai’i Crisis)And. What if: Russian Hawaii
But never heard of the Paulet affair.
Ah that 1st one was what I was remembering but couldn't find it on a search. Possibly I had spelt Hawaii rather than Hawai'i making the difference.
I hadn't heard of it either until I came across a reference to it a few months back.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 24, 2019 21:51:46 GMT
Ah that 1st one was what I was remembering but couldn't find it on a search. Possibly I had spelt Hawaii rather than Hawai'i making the difference. I hadn't heard of it either until I came across a reference to it a few months back.
Looking at the Wiki article about the Paulet affair, a mistake could have cost the British and the Americans to go to war over the islands. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Dec 24, 2019 22:53:11 GMT
Ah that 1st one was what I was remembering but couldn't find it on a search. Possibly I had spelt Hawaii rather than Hawai'i making the difference. I hadn't heard of it either until I came across a reference to it a few months back.
Looking at the Wiki article about the Paulet affair, a mistake could have cost the British and the Americans to go to war over the islands.
Possible but unlikely as the US didn't have any real navy at that point. It could threaten raids on UK trade or attacks on Canada but the latter would mean them 1st having to build an army and with a weaker economy and less railway development than 20 years later that would have been more difficult. Since Britain has a larger - by US standards - standing army and the most developed industrial capacity in the world its likely to win any such conflict. As well as having far more fiscal strength and the old issue of saltpetre supply. 
Also American maritime trade, of which there were a lot, including whalers and other fishing vessels as well as international and coastal traffic would be largely destroyed pretty quickly.
A war in 1843 would also mean that there would be no war with Mexico, for some time at least so forget about it getting California and neighbouring areas while Britain, with control of the sea, is going to have much better access to the Oregon area. As such one effect of any such war, unless Britain is very generous is that it gets more, quite possibly all of the Oregon territory, apart from any other gains that might occur.
One other issue at this period is that Britain ended slavery in its empire a decade before and is heavily committed to ending its existence. This means there is a potential motivation for continuing the war for Britain and also a possible 5th column that would have a vested interest in supporting Britain. True their a relatively powerless group but any raids in the old south region is likely to see a lot of slaves liberated.
|
|
