- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 88 Hour
- Reading permission
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-26 11:00
Actually, if you check the so-called Bayonet Constitution from the first revolt, it only disenfranchised Asians. Hawaiians were less than half the population and saw their actual impact on politics rise.
The constitution did disenfranchise most Hawaiians by putting even greater limitations on the general right to vote. There were already some limitations but the Bayonet Constitution drastically increased the limitations. It was intended to greatly increase the power of white oligarchs and I'm pretty sure you understand that.
Moving on, I think you're very confused and still refuse to actually read what I have written and read it plainly. I said the US had legal right to annex the country. I did not say that the actual vote itself was legal--I'm not well-schooled in late 19th century Congressional procedure and know no one who is. You are confusing two issues.
The U.S. had a legal to annex the country, if they approved an annexation treaty by a two-thirds vote. Instead the passed a piece of legislation by simple majority. The U.S. didn't have a legal right to annex the country by passing a resolution. However, this is not the matter of dispute. The government which was overthrown would not have pushed for annexation.
The US did not try to dominate Hawaiian commerce by annexing it. The US already dominated Hawaiian commerce because it was the closest country with a demand for Hawaiian goods.
I look and it appears you were describing the motive of the coup-plotters, not the United States, my mistake.
It did not need to annex the country to achieve or even reinforce dominance. In fact, annexation was a net loss for the US government because there were tariffs on Hawaiian goods at the time, netting handsome payments for the Federales.
I actually said they didn't need to annex in order to dominate the trade. However, there's another angle to this in that American business would benefit considerably from Hawaiian annexation and by extension many government officials but then again they also saw a nice piece of real estate which the navy wanted all to itself.
I think that the major failing in your thought process, and why you say that I'm being non-neutral, is that you don't bracket large questions into their smaller component questions. Instead you simply take the long story arc--for example, that the US expands to become one of the world's largest countries--and call it imperialism without really analyzing (or perhaps, allowing yourself to analyze) the particular events which make up that story.
Actually, you're completely wrong, not surprising. In fact I look at both the large question and the smaller component questions. It's not uncommon for imperialist interests and business interests to converge, in fact, that's classic imperialism. The British East and West India companies were the pioneers of British imperialism. Also if you want to explain to me how the huge territorial concessions coaxed out of Mexico following that war or the purchase of large swathes of territory was not classic imperial expansionism feel free. In the mean time do you mind explaining how it is that whenever the U.S. government has a prime piece of territory that someone doesn't want to relinquish there's alway some American immigrants there willing to take it over and hand it to the U.S.? Funny how the Texas Revolution was fought primarily by Americans who saw their business interests threatened by Mexico's government and then successfully asserted their independence with the abundant assistance of the United States. Just like the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was orchestrated primarily by Americans who had their business interests threatened and received assistance from the United States in doing so.
You may see leftist historical revisionism, but I for one see a pattern that gets repeated all too often in American history.