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...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.

Questions to consider while reading Mullin’s “’I am Ready to Stake My Reputation on it’…” For Class Discussion on March 21 When 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 o The 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 17 th 1893 No, 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 throne Why 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 choice But the person who actually convinced the Queen to abdicate was Joseph Oliver Carter, who was a friend of the queen o Joseph was descended from an American family that relocated to Hawaii in the 1830s. Joseph arrived on January 17 th , and was informed that the Queen was being “deposed” and the group wanted his help in persuading her The 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 decade An 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 19 th and early 20 th centuries o Also provides a way to look anew at the Populist ideas that influenced him in the 1890s Whatever Pettigrew’s reasons for opposing annexation, Hawaiians were grateful Number of reasons why Pettigrew appears only in passing: o He was on the losing side of the years-long debate; America annexed Hawaii by joint resolution in July 1898 o He lost his re-election bid in 1900, an outcome he attributed to a number of factors (opposition to Hawaiian annexation) o The racist language and dubious science Pettigrew used in his speeches opposing annexation Reasons to reconsider Pettigrew: o Pettigrew was one of 2 anti-annexation politicians to visit the islands during the debates
Image of page 1
o
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Hayes
  • Native Hawaiians, Pettigrew

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture