- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1255 Hour
- Reading permission
The greater restrictions on the right to vote, however, were not out of line with those practiced elsewhere in the world and the net result was an increase in the power of Native Hawaiians. Moreover, it's not clear to me how many Hawaiians would actually have lost voting rights because I don't have any actual data on voting. I would think that had you studied the issue carefully, you would have raised the issue of non-citizen voters as being suspect. You have not, which reinforces my opinion that you are not as well-versed in the issue as you act. The fact is, however, that the net electoral effect of Native Hawaiians increased after the Bayonet Constitution due to the disenfranchisement of Asians, so there can be no argument that the government would not have approved annexation without it--presuming, of course, that the king was reduced but I don't see you defending monarchy per se--as Native Hawaiians would have less actual say before the constitution as opposed to after. At any rate, some reports put the number of Native Hawaiians lower than half, as few as one-quarter of the islands residents were Native Hawaiians due to the immigration policies of the Kingdom which encouraged non-Hawaiians to settle there to bring capital, knowledge and other goods most easily gained (in that period) by immigration.
There is no evidence that US business would have been advanced considerably by the annexation of Hawaii. The only major concern would have been military. However, this cannot be given as an adequate basis for annexation. As you are no doubt aware, the country was in such dire straits financially that Liliuokalani was toying with the idea of opium legalization as a way to raise money and the US had to assume the debts accumulated under Kalakaua when the country was annexed. So it is not at all clear that the US had particular motive to annex versus lease the space it required. Indeed, that space could have likely been obtained for a flat payment less than what was paid to annex the country. There is quite little evidence that the US was seeking Hawaiian annexation because there is little evidence of a benefit to the US from it.
I'm going to deny that this is the pattern of US expansion but I will deny that there is anything odd or unique about it. Economic considerations drive most revolutions anywhere: the US seceded from Great Britain for economic reasons, Mexico was tired of economic exploitation by Spain, France tired of exploitation by England, the Dutch by exploitation from Spain, Italy formed to present a stronger economic and therefore political force in Europe, the Hungarians thought the Empire didn't serve their interests.
None of these states would have joined the US afterward if they did not feel that it suited their interests and I am not going to debate with you what the private thoughts of people in the 19th century were because neither of us are privy. What is clear is that you aren't actually examining the issues, you're doing exactly what I said you do. Tell me, was it an American plot that a variety of Mexican provinces tried to break away from Santa Ana's government? Of course not and the US showed no interest, even though they could have easily taken them at the time and many of these provinces were rich agricultural and silver mining regions.
The claim that the US actively sought out territories rather than had them handed to them by the actions of others is hard to maintain because the US never did begin a war of conquest. Even in the case of the Mexican-American War, there is clear evidence that Santa Ana sought to provoke a war with the US to recover Texas. We have warning from the British and French ambassadors that Santa Ana's policies would lead to a war he would not win and we have Santa Ana's stated conviction that he would succeed. So, no, your view of history doesn't really hold water at all.