Final answer:
The article presents documents on the annexation of Hawaii, reflecting a mix of Native Hawaiian resistance, U.S. political debate, and American economic interests in Hawaiian sugar. President McKinley's strategic resolution allowed annexation with a simple majority. Key viewpoints include Native Hawaiians, U.S. senators, and American plantation owners.
Step-by-step explanation:
The article presents historical documents related to the annexation of Hawaii. Initially, there was significant opposition to the annexation from both Native Hawaiians and some U.S. senators, such as anti-imperialist George Frisbie Hoar. The political climate shifted after the Spanish-American War began, showcasing Hawaii's strategic importance.
President McKinley utilized a resolution that required only a simple majority in Congress, as opposed to a two-thirds Senate majority, which allowed Hawaii to become a U.S. territory in 1900. Various viewpoints are represented in these documents.
They convey perspectives of Native Hawaiians who resisted the annexation, U.S. politicians with differing stances on imperialism, and economic interests of American plantation owners in Hawaii. These documents illustrate the complex power dynamics and motivations behind the U.S. government's decision to annex Hawaii, including strategic military concerns and economic benefits for American sugarcane planters.
As for the Hawaiian Patriotic League and sugar tariffs, they played crucial roles. The League, primarily American members, heavily influenced Hawaiian governance to favor U.S. interests. The escalation of sugar tariffs by the U.S. Congress underscored the economic motivations behind the push for annexation, as it would exempt Hawaiian sugar from the tariffs, benefiting American sugar planters.