Question

Was the United States justified in annexing Hawai?

Answer 1

The debate on the justification of the annexation of Hawaii by the United States involves various perspectives, including strategic interests, economic factors, and Native Hawaiian resistance. The annexation, influenced by U.S. expansionist policy and geopolitical demands, bypassed the traditional treaty process, reflecting the complexities of this historical event.

Step-by-step explanation:

The annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the United States is a subject of debate that can be viewed through various lenses, such as the strategic interests of the US, the resistance from Native Hawaiians, and international diplomacy. American planters and businessmen, many of whom owned sugar plantations in Hawaii, had a significant economic stake in the islands and were keen on annexation to avoid foreign sugar tariffs. The McKinley administration, seeking strategic advantages during the Spanish-American War, maneuvered the annexation treaty through Congress, bypassing the need for a two-thirds majority required for treaties by submitting it as a resolution, which needed only a simple majority.

This tactic mirrored the earlier annexation of Texas. Native Hawaiians resisted, and two petitions signed by nearly every island resident were presented to Congress. However, when Queen Liliuokalani attempted to strengthen her country's independence, she was ousted in a revolt by American interests. President Grover Cleveland initially opposed the annexation and viewed the overthrow of the queen as illegal. However, the outbreak of war with Spain changed political sentiment in favor of annexation for its strategic location.

The justification of this action is complicated, with some arguing that it was motivated by imperialistic desires and the strategic needs of the US, which overrode the sovereignty and rights of Native Hawaiians. Others see it as a necessary act driven by the geopolitical climate and the interests of American citizens living in Hawaii. Despite differing viewpoints, the fact remains that the United States' expansionist policy played a critical role in this historical event.

Answer 2

Answer: Depends on how you look at it,

Explanation: The annexation of Hawaii by the United States in 1898 is a complex issue that has been debated by historians and legal scholars for decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, and the question of whether the annexation was justified depends on one's perspective and interpretation of history.

From one perspective, the annexation of Hawaii was not justified. The overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, which paved the way for annexation, was controversial and involved the intervention of U.S. military forces. Many Native Hawaiians and their allies argue that the overthrow was illegal and unjust, and that the annexation was a violation of Hawaiian sovereignty and self-determination. They point to the fact that Hawaii was an independent nation with a recognized government and diplomatic relations with other countries before being annexed by the United States.

On the other hand, some argue that the annexation of Hawaii was justified. Supporters of annexation argue that it was necessary for the United States to acquire Hawaii in order to protect its strategic interests in the Pacific, and that the annexation was legal and followed established procedures at the time. They also point to the fact that many Hawaiians, especially those of non-native descent, supported annexation and saw it as a way to improve their economic and political status.

Ultimately, whether the United States was justified in annexing Hawaii is a matter of debate and interpretation. It is important to acknowledge the perspectives of all stakeholders and to consider the historical context in which the annexation took place.