How Hawaii was annexed by the USA

#22
To be blunt, for the most part, the US, depending on one's point of view, acquired, stole, bought, or just plain took much of it's land mass. Just like every other power in history. That's just the nature of man.
 
Jul 2012
2,934
Dhaka
#23
That we might have had significant representation in the British Parliament 200 years later would likely make a fairly weak argument for remaining 2nd class citizens in 1776. :lol::lol::lol:
and remaining 2nd class citizens with a remote possibility (non-existent at that time really) of having insignificant representation in senate/congress 70 years later was a good proposition for the Hawaiians?
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#24
and remaining 2nd class citizens with a remote possibility (non-existent at that time really) of having insignificant representation in senate/congress 70 years later was a good proposition for the Hawaiians?
Well it's not just the representation which is more than quite a few mainland states, it's the autonomy that being a US state provides. Nominal Representation is secondary compared to that. Ask those in the Puerto Rico and DC statehood movements what's more important to them, the handful of representatives they'd get, or the ability to run their own affairs? For the state government's autonomy to be restricted requires a law suit and a bunch of other not too likely steps. People don't mention this but there's a ton of clearly unconstitutional state and local laws on the books and if it never gets to the Circuit or Supreme Court, it'll stand indefinitely maybe even forever. Being a US state also gives it access to all other sorts of US government funding for various things and pays many benefits with Federal tax dollars, benefits that Hawaii as an independent state would have to use it's own tax revenue to fund(they can use their own tax revenue on other stuff, like improving their state), so being a state gives Hawaii a lot of stuff of which representation might actually be the least noteworthy and they don't really give up much in return(recent event violating the post 1991 rule drastically changes this, but that isn't a Hawaii thing that's an every state thing).
 
Jul 2012
2,934
Dhaka
#25
Well it's not just the representation which is more than quite a few mainland states, it's the autonomy that being a US state provides. Nominal Representation is secondary compared to that. Ask those in the Puerto Rico and DC statehood movements what's more important to them, the handful of representatives they'd get, or the ability to run their own affairs? For the state government's autonomy to be restricted requires a law suit and a bunch of other not too likely steps. People don't mention this but there's a ton of clearly unconstitutional state and local laws on the books and if it never gets to the Circuit or Supreme Court, it'll stand indefinitely maybe even forever. Being a US state also gives it access to all other sorts of US government funding for various things and pays many benefits with Federal tax dollars, benefits that Hawaii as an independent state would have to use it's own tax revenue to fund(they can use their own tax revenue on other stuff, like improving their state), so being a state gives Hawaii a lot of stuff of which representation might actually be the least noteworthy and they don't really give up much in return(recent event violating the post 1991 rule drastically changes this, but that isn't a Hawaii thing that's an every state thing).
Had the British empire granted equal rights to American colonies, as well as giving all benefits of being a 1st class British citizen, would that have been agreeable to you? You must realize being a British citizen was a lot better proposition than an American one in the 18th century.
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#26
Had the British empire granted equal rights to American colonies, as well as giving all benefits of being a 1st class British citizen, would that have been agreeable to you? You must realize being a British citizen was a lot better proposition than an American one in the 18th century.
Armed with historical hindsight, no it wouldn't be agreeable but to the Founding Fathers? Yeah it would have been, especially early on and outside of New England. Independence was unpopular at first outside of New England(where the war began), and the Founding Fathers sent an "Olive Branch" to the King asking him to review their demands. He reacted by threatening to kill them if they kept making demands. Prior to 1776 all the complaints were about rights the colonists didn't have. While taxation without representation was a more popular line among the masses, that really wasn't even it for the Founders, it was that the British gave themselves the ability to tax goods that the US wasn't able to legally acquire from elsewhere creating a direct tax that was an excise tax in disguise(think about how in 18th century life how many things Mollasses and Paper were used for, it was a necessity). By the time of the Boston tea party, the taxes being protested were quite reasonable and wouldn't have started tension a decade earlier IMO but it was about the principle by this point. There was also the Proclamation of 1763 which limited the growth of the colonies. If the UK had treated the Americans like other British citizens well then they wouldn't have revolted.

I think being a British citizen is a better proposition than being an American citizen today too tbh but in terms of how their overseas territory/acquisitions are/were treated, the USA wins by a lot. There's just too many conflicts that can be linked back to the UK and how they ruled their colonies and/or mandates.
 
Jul 2012
2,934
Dhaka
#27
Armed with historical hindsight, no it wouldn't be agreeable but to the Founding Fathers? Yeah it would have been, especially early on and outside of New England. Independence was unpopular at first outside of New England(where the war began), and the Founding Fathers sent an "Olive Branch" to the King asking him to review their demands. He reacted by threatening to kill them if they kept making demands. Prior to 1776 all the complaints were about rights the colonists didn't have. While taxation without representation was a more popular line among the masses, that really wasn't even it for the Founders, it was that the British gave themselves the ability to tax goods that the US wasn't able to legally acquire from elsewhere creating a direct tax that was an excise tax in disguise(think about how in 18th century life how many things Mollasses and Paper were used for, it was a necessity). By the time of the Boston tea party, the taxes being protested were quite reasonable and wouldn't have started tension a decade earlier IMO but it was about the principle by this point. There was also the Proclamation of 1763 which limited the growth of the colonies. If the UK had treated the Americans like other British citizens well then they wouldn't have revolted.

I think being a British citizen is a better proposition than being an American citizen today too tbh but in terms of how their overseas territory/acquisitions are/were treated, the USA wins by a lot. There's just too many conflicts that can be linked back to the UK and how they ruled their colonies and/or mandates.
That's a fair sum up.

But surely you see the parallel between the 'Olive branch' and the 1897 petition of Hawaiians?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,874
#28
To be blunt, for the most part, the US, depending on one's point of view, acquired, stole, bought, or just plain took much of it's land mass. Just like every other power in history. That's just the nature of man.
Another way of looking at it is the Russian / Soviet propaganda view, which is that the US is not a traditional empire, because the native population was almost entirely killed off or absorbed.
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#29
That's a fair sum up.

But surely you see the parallel between the 'Olive branch' and the 1897 petition of Hawaiians?
I actually don't. The US were a settlement colony rather than a far away conquered province. Those two kinds of places while both misleadingly labeled "colonies" for the sake of history are fundamentally different. The Hawaiians were protesting being conquered in an age of imperialism, where every great power was expected to do some conquering, the American colonists were voluntarily under the rule of the UK and might even be considered English and they decided they didn't want this to be the case anymore.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2015
276
San Jose CA
#30
There's a small but not insignificant percentage of the population that supports independence for Hawaii. A resurrection of Hawaiian culture beginning in the 1970s has probably garnered support for that position. It is manifesting itself currently in the protests about building a new telescope on top of Muana Kea which some Hawaiians view as sacred ground.

At the time of annexation, Hawaii had a modern style monarchy that was little different than many in Europe at the time. They believed the annexation was unwarranted as Hawaii was completely capable of governing itself and they were probably right. Descendants of American missionaries owned considerable land and pretty much controlled the economy of the Kingdom and they were the ones that engineered the coup, presumably to preserve their position.
 

Similar History Discussions