Question

what does the conflict between lili'uokalani and the provisional government suggest about American domestic attitudes toward expansion

Answer 1

Briefly: it shows that many Americans in the 1890s favored outward expansion — economic and strategic empire-building — and were willing to support or tolerate intervention to secure commercial interests and naval power. It also reveals racial/cultural assumptions that made intervention seem legitimate to many, even as a vocal anti‑imperialist minority objected.

Key points and evidence
- Economic motives: American sugar planters and business interests in Hawaii pushed for stability and tariff-favored access to U.S. markets (after the 1890 McKinley Tariff). Overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani was driven in large part by planters who wanted annexation to protect their profits.
- Strategic motives: Hawaii’s location made it attractive as a naval/coaling station (later Pearl Harbor). Many Americans saw overseas bases as essential to national power.
- Willingness to use force and official backing: the U.S. minister (John L. Stevens) ordered Marines ashore during the 1893 coup, lending U.S. diplomatic/military cover to the provisional government led by Sanford B. Dole — showing readiness to intervene to protect American interests.
- Cultural/racial justifications: ideas of Anglo‑Saxon superiority, “civilizing” missions, and Social Darwinist thinking helped many Americans rationalize taking control of non‑white peoples and governments.
- Domestic debate and limits: the episode also exposed opposition — President Grover Cleveland condemned the overthrow as unauthorized and anti‑imperialist figures (e.g., the Anti‑Imperialist League) argued annexation violated American principles. Ultimately McKinley’s administration annexed Hawaii in 1898, reflecting the ascendancy of expansionist sentiment.

Bottom line: the conflict suggests that late‑19th‑century American public and political opinion was strongly inclined toward economic and strategic expansion overseas, often justified by racial and nationalist rhetoric, though it was not without significant internal opposition.