1. What did Dole and the wealthy sugar planters do in 1887?
In 1887, the wealthy sugar planters in Hawaii, including Sanford B. Dole, played a central role in the drafting and implementation of the Bayonet Constitution. This constitution effectively stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its power, limiting the franchise to wealthy landowners and thereby reducing the political influence of native Hawaiians. The constitution was forced upon King Kalākaua at gunpoint, significantly benefiting American planters and consolidating their economic and political influence in Hawaii.
2. What created tensions in 1890 in Hawaii?
Tensions rose in Hawaii in 1890 due to the passage of the McKinley Tariff, which eliminated the duty-free status of Hawaiian sugar in the U.S. This tariff threatened the profitability of Hawaii's sugar industry, which relied heavily on exports to the American market. The resulting economic distress among planters heightened their desire for annexation to the United States, as this would restore favorable trade conditions.
3. What did Queen Liliuokalani do? Was she successful? Why or why not?
Queen Liliuokalani attempted to restore the power of the monarchy and re-establish a more favorable constitution for the Hawaiian people in 1893. She proposed a new constitution, known as the "Hawaiian Constitution of 1893," which aimed to return voting rights to native Hawaiians and reduce the influence of foreign (especially American) interests. However, her efforts were unsuccessful. A group of American and European sugar planters, backed by the United States government and military, orchestrated a coup to remove her from power. As a result, the monarchy was overthrown, and a provisional government was established, despite her calls for restoration.
4. What happened to Hawaii in 1898? Do you agree with the outcome of Hawaii? Why or why not?
In 1898, Hawaii was annexed by the United States through the Newlands Resolution. This action formally made Hawaii a U.S. territory. While the annexation was supported by American expansionists and businesses interested in Hawaii’s sugar industry, it was opposed by many Native Hawaiians and those who valued self-determination for the islands.
As for whether I agree with the outcome of Hawaii’s annexation, that perspective can vary. From a historical standpoint, many argue that the annexation disregarded the sovereignty and wishes of the native Hawaiian population, leading to a loss of cultural identity and autonomy. Critics view this as an example of imperialism and colonization. On the other hand, some proponents believed that it was necessary for economic growth and military strategy. Ultimately, the question of agreement with the outcome can hinge on one's views regarding imperialism, self-determination, and the rights of indigenous populations.