.. nnexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom was mostly her fault. She isolated several groups of people and made them feel that and overthrow was the only way out. Even people who had been staunch monarchists through the whole process started to dislike the way she was running the kingdom. One of the most outspoken adversaries of Liliuokalani was J.L.
Kaulukou, who one time was a strong royalist and even gave her the name onipaa which means steadfast. Liliuokalani even adopted that as her personal motto and it is widely used today by sovereignty activists . He was the appointed Marshall of the Hawaiian Kingdom, from 1884-1888, and he said in 1898: I regard annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii, both native and foreign population. Ever since it became an issue in practical politics and I rejoice heartily that it has come. For years I have looked upon it as being, if not inevitable, at least as the only way in which best interests of Hawaii could be protected and advanced7.
He believed the queen was trying to overwrite everything that was passed by a popular vote. This perturbed him because he was on these committees that helped get those things through the legislature. He believed the interests of the natives and the foreigners were both the same. They both wanted a stable, efficient, and well run government and the queen could no longer offer that . Over and over again the queen was making people mad with her revisionist government. One measure that made that fueled the revolutionists fire was her proposal for a lottery.
She proposed such measures as raising money through a lottery and licensing of opium, and having her cabinet members serving her pleasures (the power elite filled her cabinet) . This was definitely against the people in power and they could not stand her anymore. I think she should have tried to play a more political role in her dealings with the people who had power. She did not believe that people such as Sanford B. Dole amongst others should have any say in the Hawaiian government. Liliuokalani did do some things during her short reign that definitely isolated the people of her kingdom, both foreign and native alike.
She tried to restore the kingdom back to the way it was earlier in the century, with direct say of the government mostly stemming from the Queen and her advisors. She did not want the haole elite to be involved with the Hawaiian government. I can understand this from her point of view but I think that Hawaiian society had reached a point of no return. There was no way to go back to the old system and with the sugar industry establishing a strong foothold in the government and the having a large say, I believe Liliuokalani should have tried to work with them. She did appoint them to her Privy Council, or advising committee.
Members that included Sanford B. Dole, Abraham Fernandez, and John Richardson, among others . These would be the people that would eventually overthrow her and take over her government. She would arrest some of the people that used to be royalists. Robert Wilcox and V.
Ashford among them, but they no longer agreed with her . They no longer could stand the way Liliuokalani was running the government so they spoke out against it. This made many people in her advisory council mad and they started to believe that she could no longer be a capable leader. I do believe a major reason for the overthrow and eventual annexation of Hawaii was the McKinley act of 1891, which basically made the reciprocity treaty of 1887 seem just like a ploy by the United States to gain control of Pearl Harbor. The McKinley act of 1891 allowed all the sugar in the world to be free of any kind of tariff.
The United States had Pearl Harbor, but Hawaiian Sugar no longer had any advantage over any other foreign sugar . This would cause a major depression in the Hawaiian Kingdom and every time there is a depression someone will get blamed for it. The people would start to blame Liliuokalani and she seemed very complacent. The sugar plantation owners were very influential people and Liliuokalani knew this, but it seemed to me that she felt like she could not do anything. I think if she tried to appeal to the sympathies of other countries that had some interest in the Hawaiian islands things could have been a little different. Maybe it is the narrow view that I have, but I believe the British or the Japanese could have helped the Hawaiians out.
I know the United States government was just becoming a world power then but Britain was already established and they were allies of the United States. I guess Britain was also practicing empiricism too and they might have taken it over to. One thing is for sure is the queen had ill feelings towards the Minister John L. Stevens. John L.
Stevens was the minister to Hawaii, appointed by the United States government, whose annexation leanings put him at the center of the controversy after the revolution . She states Minister John L. Stevens it must be said that he was either mentally incapable of recognizing what is to be expected of a gentleman, to say nothing of a Diplomatist, or he was decidedly in the league with those persons who had conspired against the piece of Hawaii . John L. Stevens was the person who said annexation to the United States was right and gave the report back to the United States on the condition of the people in the Hawaiian Islands.
I believe that the Queen should have tried to show her power a little more and flex her muscles. I do not think the United States would have been able to act upon the people as much if she appealed to the people of the United States not just the government. A lot of the people in the United States did not want to annex the United States in 1893, not until the Spanish-American War did the United States have an interest in the Hawaiian Islands. The Government was overthrown for many reasons and there were a lot of underlying problems. I do think we have to look at the leader of the Hawaiian nation at that time and see what was her motivation for the things that she did.
The queen did try to better her peoples standing and she did try to gain equal rights for her people but the times changed to fast. The queen could not adjust to the way the Hawaiian society had changed, or she didnt want ot have society change as much as it did. Queen Liliuokalani was a little too stubborn to rule during that time and I believe if the Hawaiian people had elected Queen Emma things would have been a little bit different because the people would have probably stood up for her a little more. This is why the haoles did not want her elected and Kalakaua won the corrupted election. So the beat goes on and even today we have the whole sovereignty issue. One thing I want to leave you with is do not believe that the Hawaiian Islands were stolen from their people but believe that they were more taken form a people that were confused and were not altogether.
It was more like one big bully versus a bunch of smaller kids, if all the smaller kids got together they could have beaten the bigger kid. History Reports.