Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-328"

Latest revision as of 18:57, 5 May 2006

209/ C. Julien, America's Empire (New York: Panipheon Books, 1971), p. 53; 31 Cong. Rec, pp. 5920, 6003 (1898).

210/ H. Wayne Morgan, Wm. McKinley and His America, (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963), p. 295.

211/ Ibid., pp. 295-6.

212/ Ibid., p. 296.

213/ H. R. Rep. No. 1355, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 29 (1898). The Office of Hawaiian Affairs commented that the Commission's Draft Report " ...reasons that annexation by the joint resolution method was necessary because annexation was essential" (OHA's Comments, p. 17). OHA states that by the time the annexation resolution was introduced in Congress the Spanish-American War was "virtually over" and asserts that the joint resolution was utilized "because of strong opposition in the Senate to annexation" (OHA's Comments, p. 17). Similarly, Congressman Daniel Akaka submits: "It wasn't so much expediency that required a joint resolution in Congress as the fact that many Americans and their representatives did not support the annexation of a country whose government had been established and maintained with United States military force" (Congressman Akaka's Comments, p. 11).

In fact, the Draft Report acknowledges that there was strong opposition to the annexation of Hawaii in the United States Senate (Draft Report, pp. 203-204; Final Report, pp. 302-303). Furthermore, the comments ignore the distinction between the immediate reason for the interest in annexing Hawaii that prompted the use of a joint resolution—i.e., fear that unless the United States acted immediately some other foreign power would take over Hawaii--and the underlying reasons for interest in annexing Hawaii: the commercial importance of Hawaii, a fear of control of Hawaii by the Japanese, and protection of the Pacific Coast. These underlying reasons are evident from the Congressional debate on the joint resolution.

Theories of present-day historians that American commercial interests were the principal motivating force behind annexation (T. J. Osborne) or that anti-Japanese sentiment was the major driving force behind annexation (W. H. Morgan) (pointed out in Senator Daniel Inouye's Comments, p. 11) do not alter the fact that the underlying reasons for interest in annexation cited in the Draft Report, in fact, contributed to sentiment for annexing the Hawaiian Islands.

214/ 31 Cong. Rec., p. 5772

215/ Julien, p. 53.

216/ 31 Cong. Rec, p. 5920

217/ Ibid., p. 6003

218/ Ibid., p. 6141

219/ Morgan, p. 296.

220/ 31 Cong. Rec., p. 5785 (1898).

221/ Ibid., p. 5835

222/ Ibid., p. 6005

223/ Ibid., 5982

224/ Ibid., p. 6518.

225/ Morgan, p. 297. 226/ Ibid., p. 294. 227/ Ibid., p. 295.