Mullin--Pettigrew and South Dakota.docx - Questions to consider while reading Mullin\u2019s \u201c\u2019I am Ready to Stake My Reputation on it\u2019\u2026\u201d For
Mullin--Pettigrew and South Dakota.docx - Questions to...
Questions to consider while reading Mullin’s “’I am Ready to Stake My Reputation on it’…”For Class Discussion on March 21When did the United States first think about annexing Hawaii? Does this surprise you?The US had first considered a bill to annex Hawaii in 1852 oThe people who were petitioning for the annexation were missionaries, sugar planters, and businessmen (who wanted domestic steamer connections with San Francisco) The overthrow did not happen until January 17th1893No, this does not surprise me because it is plausible that the missionaries and sugar planters would want to annex Hawaii.But before Hawaii could be attached to the US, the revolutionaries needed Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate the throneWhy did the US propose a bill? Is that how an annexation starts?Who actually convinced the Queen to abdicate? Does this surprise you?The revolutionaries wanted to convince the Queen that formally relinquishing the throne was the only real choiceBut the person who actually convinced the Queen to abdicate was Joseph Oliver Carter, who wasa friend of the queenoJoseph was descended from an American family that relocated to Hawaii in the 1830s. Joseph arrived on January 17th, and was informed that the Queen was being “deposed” and the group wanted his help in persuading herThe Queen abdicated peacefully, but made it clear that her abdication was to avoid any “loss of life”This actually does surprise me because Joseph was supposed to be the Queen’s friend, and he is going against her. He should be the one person on her side. But maybe he is going “against” her because he knows that this is the best option she has. At least if she abdicates peacefully, no harm will come to her.Were there other people close to the Queen who influenced her decision?Why does the author argue that scholars/students should take a “new look” at Pettigrew and his torl in the debate over annexation”?Pettigrew had gone on record opposing new territorial acquisitions as early as 1890- voted against Hawaiian annexation for the entire decadeAn examination of Pettigrew’s opposition= a better understanding of the man’s political philosophy, as well as that of the anti-imperialists of the late 19thand early 20thcenturiesoAlso provides a way to look anew at the Populist ideas that influenced him in the 1890sWhatever Pettigrew’s reasons for opposing annexation, Hawaiians were gratefulNumber of reasons why Pettigrew appears only in passing:oHe was on the losing side of the years-long debate; America annexed Hawaii by joint resolution inJuly 1898oHe lost his re-election bid in 1900, an outcome he attributed to a number of factors (opposition to Hawaiian annexation)oThe racist language and dubious science Pettigrew used in his speeches opposing annexationReasons to reconsider Pettigrew:oPettigrew was one of 2 anti-annexation politicians to visit the islands during the debates