Why did the United States not acquire the Hawaiian Islands in 1893?

 

Name

College

Date

Why did the United States not acquire the Hawaiian Islands in 1893?

The overthrow of the monarch of Hawaiian Islands in 1893, backed by expatriate American businesspersons, sparked a lot of political debate on the legality of the move.  The coup de tat deposed off the queen, Queen Lili’uokalani, and acquired 1.75 million acres of crown land. Later on, put under house arrest in Lolani palace[1]. The proponents of the annexation argued that the current regime was corrupt and dissolute hence the people of Hawaii needed a more democratic system. They also argued that given its strategic importance to US a western power might annex it. The coup was bloodless since the queen decided to avoid any military confrontation in order to save her citizens lives.

According to Osborne[2], there were several views against the annexation of Hawaii during that time. Those resisting the acquisition argued that annexation of Hawaii contradicted with the American vision to be “archetype of the virtuous republic” as envisioned by the founding fathers. In addition, there were concerns, by the anti-imperialists, about the issue of American expansion into areas beyond its pacific boundaries. Those pro-annexation   He further concerted with fundamental reason for the annexation debate i.e. economic pursuits and racial prejudices were the primary motivators.

The annexation of Hawaii was not an original idea conceived in 1893. According to foreign diplomatic records as early as 1851, the idea of annexation had been sowed in people’s minds. King Kamehameha 3 had approached the US with a proposition to annex Hawaii. However, the secretary of state Daniel Webster declined the offer and stated, “No power ought to take possession of the islands as conquest”. It is of importance to note that later monarchs supported by the locals loathed at the idea of annexation. To get an in-depth understanding of the reasons for US going to war in 1893 over Hawaii we ought to revisit the events that were going on prior to the war.

At the time Captain James Cooke who was a British explorer reached Hawaii in the year 1778, the number of Hawaii people who lived in the islands was approximately 3000,000. Because of their interactions with the Americans and European foreigners during the eighteenth century, the native population became highly susceptible to western ailments like cholera, small pox and leprosy. This led to high morbidity and consequently high death rates. This had the effect of reducing the native population significantly hence by 1891 they were the minority on the islands.

Another factor that influenced the US foreign policy to Hawaii, during the late 19^th century, was Queen Lili’uokalani. In 1891, an article was widely circulated in the press in dictating that the queen was seriously ill. Despite the authorities denying this allegation, it had already caused irredeemable damage. During the same period, there emerged another report to the effect that the queen’s personal feelings were more pro-British and anti-American[3]. This further fuelled the rumour that strong British personnel were working tireless to undermine the American position. The accusations had some truth in them but the stories become distorted ending up vilifying the character of the queen.

The effect of this can best be illustrated the letter written by Secretary of State Blaine to President Harrison in August 1891[4]. It read in part that, “I think there are three places that are of value to be taken, that are not continental. These are Hawaii, Cuba and Porto Rico. Cuba and Porto Rico are not now eminent and will not be in for a generation. Hawaii may come up for a decision at any unexpected hour and I hope we shall be prepared to decide it in the affirmative.” This prompted the stationing of a US navy ship at Honolulu with an aim to protect American interests and put off European speculators. Though the presence of the American warship at Honolulu incensed the queen and her cabinet she was torn been protecting her sovereignty and preserving her relations with the US. The latter prevailed.

The queen was also to come to terms with an economic depression caused by the change in US tariff law. Though the McKinley tariffs become operational in April 1891, its ill effects preceded years prior to its enactment[5]. The McKinley tariff was an act of US congress, which raised the average duty on imports by almost half. Its aim was at shielding the local domestic industries from foreign competition. This had a profound influence on the sugar sector of Hawaii. It crippled the Hawaiian sugar industry since it lowered duties on imports coming from selected countries. This abolished the advantage it had as result of the 1875 Reciprocity treaty.

The queens attempt to pass the 1887 Bayonet constitution to gain more political and economic control over the monarch antagonised the Euro-American business elites who held the controlling stake in the affairs of the government. The queen’s move to promulgate a new constitution was seen to jeopardise the interests of the Euro- American business elite.

The events that occurred during the first trial to annex Hawaii in 1893 followed this sequence. On January 16, 1893 Charles B., the Marshal to the Kingdom, was tipped off about the imminent coup. The group responsible was a thirteen-member council called Committee of safety. Charles was unable to get the arrest warrants and he opted to confront them. This sparked off a revolution between forces allied to the attorney general and those allied to Charles. The community of safety mobilised a militia named Honolulu Rifles composed of 1500-armed men (non-native) aimed to dispose the queen. The community of safety further expressed concern on their safety and property to their mother country, America. After confirming the threat on non-combatant civilians, the government deployed uniformed marines with orders of neutrality and provide protection. On sensing the imminent defeat, the queen surrendered and the Honolulu Rifles took over the government, disarmed Royal guard and established a provisional government.

Different recent scholarly works attempt to reason out the motives behind the US supporting the destabilization and eventual coup of the Queen Lili’uokalani monarchy by non-native American expatriates. One of the most emphasized justifications is that the US was guarding the economic and strategic location of Hawaii. It’s argued that the US was at the initial stages of establishing strong naval bases to protect foreign markets in Asia, Latin America, Central America, and the pacific[6]. Hawaii provided a key strategic base from which to guard the navy. This illustrated best by the quick acceptance of the provisional government by President Benjamin H. and the inappropriate approval of despatching the American army to support Honolulu Rifles militia. This clearly confirms that it was in the best economic interest for annexation of Hawaii[7].

The Harrisons treaty of annexation, which was negotiated hastily between groups of handpicked representatives from Hawaii’s provisional government, was revoked when President Grover Cleveland came to office. President Grover Cleveland and Secretary of state, Walter Q. Gresham, were the proponents of the motion to revoke the Harrison’s treaty. Gresham personally was totally against provisional government activities spanning from 1893 to 1895. The president’s approach was ambiguous and anti-imperialistic, however Gresham was more passionate to abolish the provisional government and reinstate the monarchy. An in-depth analysis of Gresham’s goal to reinstate the queen of Hawaii indicates how contradictory US foreign policy was between those times.

A brief background check on Gresham indicates he was a staunch ant-imperialist. He strongly believed in traditional political systems, equality, and self-drive. Guided by the traditional political values and foreign policy of 18^th century, he proclaimed that the constitution did not have provisions for colonial acquisition[8]. He pointed out that overseas colonies would be expensive to manage, lead to unnecessary wars, and violate the fore fathers vision of America being “archetype of the virtuous republic.”

He further condemned the post revolutionary provisional government of Hawaii, which was, perpetrated colonialism and imperialism. The Harrisons treaty clearly showed the dangers of denying a society self rule to its citizens. He emphasised that governments derive their authority to govern from the consent of its people; any system that violates or contradicts this rule is unsustainable and irresponsible[9]. He rejected the argument that the revolution was a result of the Queen Lili’uokalani attempt to abolish constitutional term limits. This was centrally to the real causes, which we have so far established to be the sugar interests and the implementation of the constitution that geared to strength the powers of the monarchy.

Gresham’s attempt to block the annexation of Hawaii and to unseat the provisional government traced back to 1893. The periodic reports from President Harrison’s representative, James Blount, further strengthened his stand.

The reports showed that the revolutionary government imposed on the Hawaiians without their approval and only a small population favoured annexation[10]. He argued that the US had aided the overthrowing of a legitimate government and further facilitated the reinstating of an unjust government. On December 1893, Gresham advocated for reinstating the queen if she met Cleveland’s condition of forgiving the revolutionaries.

Grisham and Cleveland differed on the ideology of American expansion this greatly hampered Grisham attempts to advocate for immediate restoration of Hawaii to its people by force. Gresham opposed any unnecessary overseas influences whereas Cleveland was pro American expansion hence he supported the provision government in Hawaii. He immensely valued the economic and military benefits of retaining Hawaii. In 1894, he negotiated with King Kalakaua to acquire exclusive rights to build pearl harbour as a future naval base[11].

Congress suggested that the Hawaiian people should decide their own destiny and American influence would be limited. However, in early 1895, royalist forces staged a revolt that got supported by the native Hawaiian people to upstage the provisional government forces. In retaliation to this, President Cleveland sent a wars hip Philadelphia to support the locals and protect its naval base in Honolulu.

In conclusion, the American interest on Hawaii in terms of economic and geo-strategic benefits have constantly through history hampered the Hawaiian people from exercising their democratic rights.

 

 

Works cited

Allen, Helena G. 1982. The betrayal of Liliuokalani, last Queen of Hawaii, 1838-1917. Glendale, California: A.H. Clark Co.

Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1967. The HawaiianKingdom. Volume III, 1874-1893, the Kalakaua Dynasty. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Osborne, Thomas J. 1981. “Empire can wait”: American opposition to Hawaiian annexation, 1893-1898. Kent, Ohio: KentStateUniversity Press.

United States. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States 1894: Affairs in Hawaii (1894).

 

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]