Question

Why are American business owners trying to overthrow and to control the Hawaiian government?


The Hawaiian rulers were poor leaders and ineffective


If Hawaii were to be annexed by the united States then the businesses would not have to pay tariffs to sell goods in America

Answer 1

Short answer: economic and strategic motives — led by American sugar and pineapple planters and supported by U.S. expansionists — plus racial/imperial attitudes and opportunistic use of political instability in Honolulu. Your two statements contain partial truths but need context.

A more complete explanation:

- Economic motive (your second point is essentially correct). By the late 19th century Hawaii’s economy was dominated by American-owned sugar (and later pineapple) plantations. These planters wanted duty-free access to the U.S. market. The 1875 Reciprocity Treaty had helped by allowing Hawaiian sugar into the U.S. largely tariff-free, but changes in U.S. policy (notably the McKinley Tariff of 1890) and economic pressures made annexation attractive because it would permanently eliminate tariffs and stabilize profits for the planters and their investors.

- Strategic motive. Naval strategists and politicians wanted a U.S. Pacific base. Pearl Harbor was seen as a vital coaling and naval station for any Pacific presence. That strategic value grew especially during and after the Spanish–American War (1898), which helped push annexation over the finish line.

- Political and social context (relates to your first point but more complicated). Hawaiian government and society were under intense pressure from foreign economic interests and missionaries’ descendants. The monarchy faced real political challenges — including the 1887 “Bayonet Constitution” forced on King Kalakaua, which sharply reduced royal power and expanded voting rights for wealthy non‑native residents — but calling the rulers simply “poor and ineffective” misses the larger picture. Queen Liliʻuokalani sought to restore power to the monarchy and native Hawaiians; her attempt to promulgate a new constitution in 1893 was used by American planters as justification for overthrow. The overthrow was backed by the Committee of Safety (mostly American businessmen and residents) and by U.S. Minister John L. Stevens, who ordered Marines ashore. A U.S. investigation (the Blount Report) later found the landing illegally aided the overthrow, though a later Congressional investigation (Morgan Report) reached different conclusions.

- Imperial and racial attitudes. Late 19th-century U.S. expansionism, manifest destiny ideas, and racist views of native peoples also shaped support for control of Hawaii. Many American politicians and businessmen believed annexation was desirable for national prestige and “civilizing” rationales used at the time.

- Who led it and what happened. Key actors included the Committee of Safety (planters), Sanford B. Dole (leader of the provisional government, later president of the Republic of Hawaii), U.S. Minister John L. Stevens, President Benjamin Harrison’s administration which pushed for annexation, President Grover Cleveland who opposed it after the Blount Report, and President William McKinley whose administration completed annexation in 1898.

- Consequences. The overthrow and annexation deprived native Hawaiians of sovereignty, led to political and cultural suppression, and concentrated economic power in a few American-controlled companies (the “Big Five”).

So: yes, tariff and commercial interests were a major motive, but they were joined by strategic, political, and ideological reasons and were executed through a mix of local collusion, diplomatic pressure, and U.S. military presence rather than simply because the Hawaiian rulers were “ineffective.”