U.S. Intervention in Hawaii: Not Primarily Economic

The premise that the U.S. intervened in Hawaii primarily for economic reasons is **not supported by historical consensus**. The 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and 1898 annexation were driven by a convergence of factors:

• Strategic/Naval: Pearl Harbor's value as a mid-Pacific coaling station and naval base (Mahan's influence). Critical for power projection to Asia.
• Geopolitical: Fear of Japanese or British acquisition; "ripe fruit" doctrine.
• Political: Missionary/planters' lobby (Committee of Safety), U.S. Minister John Stevens' collaboration.
• Economic: Sugar planters' interests (reciprocity treaty, tariff avoidance) were a **factor but not the sole driver**. The 1890 McKinley Tariff hurt Hawaiian sugar; annexation restored U.S. market access.

Native Hawaiians opposed annexation (Ku'e Petitions, 21,000+ signatures). The U.S. apologized in 1993 (Public Law 103-150). Economic interests were real but embedded in a broader imperial/strategic calculus.