Question
In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain, starting the Spanish-American War. This war happened mostly because many Americans wanted to help Cuban freedom fighters who were struggling for independence. At the same time, newspapers were publishing sensational and often exaggerated stories, getting people fired up about the situation. When the USS Maine, a U.S. Navy ship, exploded in Havana Harbor, it made more people demand war. President McKinley finally declared war on April 25, 1898.
The war didn’t last long, and the U.S. quickly won battles in Cuba and Puerto Rico. By August 12, 1898, a peace treaty was signed, ending the conflict. During this time, the U.S. also took control of Hawaii. This was influenced by the fear that other countries might take over Hawaii, even though President Grover Cleveland was initially against annexation. Business leaders in America and rising nationalist feelings changed many people's minds about expanding the country’s influence. Hawaii officially became a U.S. territory in 1900 with Sanford Dole as its governor, even though Queen Liliuokalani had been removed from power in 1893.
These events made people in the U.S. think a lot about what America’s role should be in the world and sparked many different opinions on whether expansion was a good idea or not.
In this discussion, you will discuss the Hawaii Annexation.
Post a detailed response to the discussion prompt. Then comment on at least two other posts.
To understand how you will be graded for this assignment, read the Discussion Guidelines and Rubric.
Using your knowledge of the text and the sources given, answer the question:
Should the U.S. have annexed Hawaii?
The war didn’t last long, and the U.S. quickly won battles in Cuba and Puerto Rico. By August 12, 1898, a peace treaty was signed, ending the conflict. During this time, the U.S. also took control of Hawaii. This was influenced by the fear that other countries might take over Hawaii, even though President Grover Cleveland was initially against annexation. Business leaders in America and rising nationalist feelings changed many people's minds about expanding the country’s influence. Hawaii officially became a U.S. territory in 1900 with Sanford Dole as its governor, even though Queen Liliuokalani had been removed from power in 1893.
These events made people in the U.S. think a lot about what America’s role should be in the world and sparked many different opinions on whether expansion was a good idea or not.
In this discussion, you will discuss the Hawaii Annexation.
Post a detailed response to the discussion prompt. Then comment on at least two other posts.
To understand how you will be graded for this assignment, read the Discussion Guidelines and Rubric.
Using your knowledge of the text and the sources given, answer the question:
Should the U.S. have annexed Hawaii?
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
The annexation of Hawaii by the United States in 1898 is a complex issue that raises questions about imperialism, national interest, and the rights of indigenous peoples. Analyzing this from various perspectives helps to shed light on whether the U.S. should have pursued the annexation.
**Arguments in Favor of Annexation:**
1. **Strategic Location:** Hawaii's geographical position in the Pacific made it an ideal coaling station and naval base for the United States. With the growing influence of other powers in the Pacific, including Japan and European nations, annexing Hawaii was seen as vital for maintaining American security and commercial interests in Asia. The strategic advantage of having a military and logistic base would facilitate trade routes to China and protect American shipping interests.
2. **Economic Interests:** American business interests, particularly in the sugar and pineapple industries, were heavily invested in Hawaii. The annexation allowed these businesses to thrive without the constraints of tariffs that existed under the existing political arrangement. The idea that Hawaii could be fully integrated into the U.S. economy was appealing, as it promised substantial economic growth and profits for American entrepreneurs.
3. **National Pride and Expansionism:** The late 19th century was characterized by a wave of nationalism in the U.S. Many Americans embraced the notion of "Manifest Destiny," believing it was their duty to expand their territory and influence. The annexation of Hawaii was part of a broader pattern of U.S. expansionism, which participants viewed as a way to assert America’s status as a global power.
**Arguments Against Annexation:**
1. **Violation of Sovereignty:** The overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 without the consent of the Hawaiian people raises significant ethical questions. The annexation was facilitated by a coup led by American business interests, supported by U.S. military intervention. This disenfranchisement of Hawaiians and the disregard for their sovereignty undermined the principles of self-determination and respect for indigenous rights.
2. **Cultural Displacement:** The annexation led to significant cultural disruption for the Native Hawaiian population. Many Hawaiians viewed this as a loss of their identity, language, and way of life. The imposition of American culture and governance meant that indigenous traditions were often marginalized or suppressed, leading to long-lasting impacts that are still felt today.
3. **Political Opposition:** There was substantial resistance to annexation within the United States, including from prominent political figures and a significant portion of the American public. The anti-imperialist sentiment argued that expanding U.S. territory contradicted the nation's foundational ideals of freedom and democracy. This opposition suggests that a significant moral and political rationale existed against the annexation.
In conclusion, the question of whether the U.S. should have annexed Hawaii is multifaceted. While there were clear strategic and economic reasons for the annexation, these benefits came at the expense of Hawaiian sovereignty and culture. The consequences of the annexation, particularly the ethical considerations associated with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and the implications for Hawaiian identity, weigh heavily in the assessment. Thus, although the annexation may have seemed advantageous at the time, it ultimately represents a morally complicated chapter in American history. In light of these factors, it can be argued that the U.S. should not have annexed Hawaii, as the benefits did not justify the means by which they were achieved.
**Arguments in Favor of Annexation:**
1. **Strategic Location:** Hawaii's geographical position in the Pacific made it an ideal coaling station and naval base for the United States. With the growing influence of other powers in the Pacific, including Japan and European nations, annexing Hawaii was seen as vital for maintaining American security and commercial interests in Asia. The strategic advantage of having a military and logistic base would facilitate trade routes to China and protect American shipping interests.
2. **Economic Interests:** American business interests, particularly in the sugar and pineapple industries, were heavily invested in Hawaii. The annexation allowed these businesses to thrive without the constraints of tariffs that existed under the existing political arrangement. The idea that Hawaii could be fully integrated into the U.S. economy was appealing, as it promised substantial economic growth and profits for American entrepreneurs.
3. **National Pride and Expansionism:** The late 19th century was characterized by a wave of nationalism in the U.S. Many Americans embraced the notion of "Manifest Destiny," believing it was their duty to expand their territory and influence. The annexation of Hawaii was part of a broader pattern of U.S. expansionism, which participants viewed as a way to assert America’s status as a global power.
**Arguments Against Annexation:**
1. **Violation of Sovereignty:** The overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 without the consent of the Hawaiian people raises significant ethical questions. The annexation was facilitated by a coup led by American business interests, supported by U.S. military intervention. This disenfranchisement of Hawaiians and the disregard for their sovereignty undermined the principles of self-determination and respect for indigenous rights.
2. **Cultural Displacement:** The annexation led to significant cultural disruption for the Native Hawaiian population. Many Hawaiians viewed this as a loss of their identity, language, and way of life. The imposition of American culture and governance meant that indigenous traditions were often marginalized or suppressed, leading to long-lasting impacts that are still felt today.
3. **Political Opposition:** There was substantial resistance to annexation within the United States, including from prominent political figures and a significant portion of the American public. The anti-imperialist sentiment argued that expanding U.S. territory contradicted the nation's foundational ideals of freedom and democracy. This opposition suggests that a significant moral and political rationale existed against the annexation.
In conclusion, the question of whether the U.S. should have annexed Hawaii is multifaceted. While there were clear strategic and economic reasons for the annexation, these benefits came at the expense of Hawaiian sovereignty and culture. The consequences of the annexation, particularly the ethical considerations associated with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and the implications for Hawaiian identity, weigh heavily in the assessment. Thus, although the annexation may have seemed advantageous at the time, it ultimately represents a morally complicated chapter in American history. In light of these factors, it can be argued that the U.S. should not have annexed Hawaii, as the benefits did not justify the means by which they were achieved.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!