Jan. 17, 1893 | Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed Businessmen

By The Learning Network
Queen Liliuokalani, the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii, is shown in this uncredited portrait taken around 1890.
Historic Headlines

Learn about key events in history and their connections to today.

On Jan. 17, 1893, Hawaii’s monarchy was overthrown when a group of businessmen and sugar planters forced Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate. The coup led to the dissolving of the Kingdom of Hawaii two years later, its annexation as a U.S. territory and eventual admission as the 50th state in the union.

The first European contact with Hawaii was made in 1778 by Capt. James Cook. In the 19th century, traders and missionaries came to the islands from Europe and the United States. They often opposed the Hawaiian monarchy, favoring instead a British-style constitutional monarchy where the monarch held little power.

In 1874, David Kalakaua became king and sought to reduce the power of the white Missionary Party (later Reform Party) in the government. In 1887, angered by King Kalakaua’s extravagant spending and his attempts to dilute their power, a small group of Missionary Party members, known as the Hawaiian League, struck back against the king.

Led by Lorrin A. Thurston and Sanford B. Dole, the Hawaiian League drafted a new constitution that reduced the power of the king and increased the power of the cabinet and Legislature. It also extended voting rights to wealthy noncitizens, while excluding Asians and restricting access for native Hawaiians through land-owning and literacy provisions. Backed by a militia, the group used the threat of violence to force King Kalakaua to sign the constitution, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution.

King Kalakaua died in 1891 and was succeeded by his sister, Liliuokalani, who proposed a new constitution that would restore powers of the monarchy and extend voting rights for native Hawaiians. The queen’s actions angered many of Hawaii’s white businessmen, who formed a 13-member Committee of Safety with the goal of overthrowing the monarchy and seeking annexation by the United States.

The Jan. 29, 1893 edition of The New York Times recounted the events of the coup. On Jan. 16, Hawaiian Marshal Charles B. Wilson attempted to arrest the committee members and declare martial law, but his attempts were turned down by other government officials who feared violence. The next day, after a police officer was shot and wounded trying to halt the distribution of weapons to the Committee of Safety’s militia, the committee decided to put its coup into action. Near the queen’s ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu, the committee’s militia gathered and were joined by 162 U.S. Marines and Navy sailors who were ordered by John L. Stevens, U.S. Minister to Hawaii, to protect the committee. The queen surrendered peacefully to avoid violence.

The Committee of Safety established a provisional government headed by Mr. Dole. U.S. President Grover Cleveland opposed the provisional government and called for the queen to be restored to power, but the Committee of Safety established the Republic of Hawaii and refused to cede power. In 1895, Hawaiian royalists began a coup against the republic, but it did not succeed. Queen Liliuokalani was arrested for her alleged role in the coup and convicted of treason; while under house arrest, the queen agreed to formally abdicate and dissolve the monarchy.

In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii. Hawaii was administered as a U.S. territory until 1959, when it became the 50th state.

Connect to Today:

In 1993, Congress issued an apology to the people of Hawaii for the U.S. government’s role in the overthrow and acknowledged that “the native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty.” And, since 2000, Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, who is soon to retire, has repeatedly proposed to Congress the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka Bill, which would extend sovereignty to 400,000 native Hawaiians.

In 2005, The Times described the bill: “The measure would give [Native Hawaiians] equivalent legal standing to American Indians and native Alaskans and lead to the creation of a governing body that would make decisions on [their] behalf … The governing body would also have the power to negotiate with federal and state authorities over the disposition of vast amounts of land and resources taken by the United States when the islands were annexed in 1898.”

Supporters say the bill is necessary to protect native culture and redress Hawaiians for past injustices. Opponents say the bill is unworkable and would create a racially divided state.

What are your thoughts on legislation that gives native Hawaiians more control over the land, culture and resources of the islands? Given your understanding of history, would you support or oppose a bill that grants more autonomy to native Hawaiians? Why?

Learn more about what happened in history on January 17»

Learn more about Historic Headlines and our collaboration with findingDulcinea »

Correction: January 17, 2012
An earlier version of this post read "The next day, after a police officer was killed trying to halt the distribution of weapons to the Committee of Safety’s militia, the committee decided to put its coup into action. Near the queen’s ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu, the committee’s militia gathered and were joined by about 300 U.S. Marines and Navy sailors who were ordered by John L. Stevens, U.S. Minister to Hawaii, to protect the committee." The police officer was shot and wounded, not killed. Though the Times article from Jan. 29, 1893, reported the number of U.S. Marines and sailors at around 300, the official number given by U.S. government investigations is 162. The post has been amended to reflect those changes.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

John Swindle January 17, 2012 · 6:57 am

Thank you for your excellent piece on the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. You asked how readers feel about the Akaka Bill that aims to give autonomy to Native Hawaiians.

In Hawaii the Akaka Bill is opposed by a few white apologists for the American-sponsored overthrow and subsequent annexation–and by many Native Hawaiians who feel it’s not a reasonable alternative to the national independence that was wrongfully taken away and either (a) continues to exist in law, needing only to be lived out, or (b) must someday be restored.

The argument for the Akaka Bill, also held by many Native Hawaiians, is that Hawaii today is clearly a part of the USA, with a huge American military presence, and that for the United States to recognize Native Hawaiians as something like American Indians is better than nothing and may have practical advantages.

I’m an American who has lived most of his life in Hawaii. My wife and I are raising a Native Hawaiian son. My pro-Hawaiian bias will be obvious. I respect Senator Akaka and have voted for him at each opportunity. It’s hard for me to support or oppose the Akaka Bill.

nick January 17, 2012 · 11:08 am

i think wate we did was rong but now it is a state now so it over

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. January 17, 2012 · 12:41 pm

Unfortunately this “learning network” article is delivering factual falsehoods and lousy interpretation to the readers.

Here are a few errors of fact:

FALSE “The coup led to the dissolving of the Kingdom of Hawaii two years later”
TRUE: A revolutionary Provisional Government was put in place immediately, and given de facto recognition within 2 days by the local consuls of every nation with a consulate in Honolulu. Following a Constitutional Convention and election, the Republic of Hawaii was created in July 1894. Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of 20 nations on 4 continents personally signed letters in 11 languages giving full-fledged recognition de jure to the Republic as the rightful government. Photos of those letters are at
//tinyurl.com/4wtwdz
Hawaii remained an independent nation for 4 more years. Hawaii offered a Treaty of Annexation in 1897 and the U.S. accepted the Treaty in 1898.

MISLEADING HALF-TRUTH: [The Bayonet Constitution of 1887] “extended voting rights to wealthy noncitizens, while excluding Asians and restricting access for native Hawaiians through land-owning and literacy provisions.”
FULL TRUTH: Noncitizens who owned property and/or held high positions in the government had were given “denization” papers and had voting rights long before 1887; and there were already property/income requirements for voting established under the previous Constitution of 1864, which had been unilaterally proclaimed by King Lot Kamehameha V after he failed to get it approved by the legislature.

FALSE: “a police officer was killed trying to halt the distribution of weapons to the Committee of Safety’s militia”
TRUE: The police officer was shot in the shoulder, went to hospital, and made a speedy recovery. He was visited in hospital the next day by President Dole and other leaders of the revolution, who gave him their well-wishes.

NASTY FALSEHOOD: “joined by about 300 U.S. Marines and Navy sailors who were ordered by John L. Stevens, U.S. Minister to Hawaii, to protect the committee.”
TRUE: There were 162 U.S. peacekeepers sent ashore by order of U.S. representative Stevens to protect American lives and property and to intervene if necessary to prevent arson and looting. But A Congressional investigation found that the troops were specifically ordered not to interfere or help either side in the revolution, did not take over any buildings or patrol the streets, stayed in barracks because they were not needed, and gave no materials or assistance to either side in the revolution. See the 808-page official report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs at
//morganreport.org

UNSTATED TRUTH: The most important, most highly credible scientific survey on the Akaka bill was done by Zogby in November 2009. A press release and full report on Zogby stationery includes text of the questions along with statistical analysis and professional interpretation of the results. Once again it showed that a majority of Hawaii’s people oppose the Akaka bill, and an even larger majority want a ballot referendum on the question.
//grassrootinstitute.org/press-releases/2009_akakapoll

FOR ADDITIONAL READING: “Hawaii Statehood — straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959.”
//tinyurl.com/n2zzeo
and also
“Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State”
//tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

Keith Hirata January 17, 2012 · 3:30 pm

I want to correct a huge error in your blog post. The author states, “Queen Liliuokalani was arrested for her alleged role in the coup and convicted of treason; while under house arrest, the queen agreed to formally abdicate and dissolve the monarchy.” but agreeing to abdicate is very different from temporarily yielding her authority because of unjust circumstances.

She did, indeed, yield her authority to avoid bloodshed but fully expected her authority to be returned after the President of the U.S. and congress had the opportunity to investigate the circumstances around the overthrow. That is far from the definition of “abdicate”!

Here is the Queen’s statement yielding her authority and protesting the illegal overthrow on January 17, 1893:

“I Liliʻuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.

Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

President Cleveland ordered an investigation and later declared, “Substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair the monarchy.” Cleveland further stated in his 1893 State of the Union Address that, “Upon the facts developed it seemed to me the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention.”

As we all know, those were hollow words because justice was never enforced. To this day, there exists no formal treaty or legal document giving sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, and therefore, it is questionable whether Hawaii is legally even a part of the U.S. The basis of territorial annexation and later statehood cannot be founded upon a fraudulent foundation – that is, the notion that Queen Liliuokalani ceded Hawaii to the U.S.

Sabrina January 17, 2012 · 4:06 pm

This is a story that does not get told in most schools here in the Mainland US. I only learned of it in 1993 when I was a university student. Absolutely disgraceful.

Josh January 17, 2012 · 8:13 pm

At least this article gets the word out. Not much is said about Hawaii’s history in US History classes. When people wonder why America is so hated, this can be pointed at as one example.

The Akaka Bill is a good start, but should not be the end all.

Rick January 17, 2012 · 8:13 pm

It’s over quit complaining. If Hawaii was not apart of the united states then it would be a third world country on par with all the other poor south east asain nations. Native Hawaiians should be thanking us for bringing them civilization. You will never be a sovereign nation again based on your strategic position in the middle of the pacific. If you were not taken by the U.S. Youbdoing be apart of China, RUssia, or Japan.

Garrett “Ka’ili” Wells Jr. January 17, 2012 · 8:19 pm

I really like this article. Pretty basic and straightforward. Although, along with Keith Hirata’s correction, I’d like to point out that the original missionaries were not the ones who tried to overthrow the Hawaiian government, but their grandchildren. Yes, they tried to reform it a bit, and succeeded some, but were never opposed to a sovereign Hawaiian nation. They enjoyed the benefits of the Hawaiian Kingdom for about three generations.

Jeannine Johnson January 17, 2012 · 9:26 pm

What the US did was wrong. The Apology Resolution acknowledged that. Since the overthrow 119 years ago, Hawaiians have fought to regain their nation and control of their lands. Hawaiians signed 556 pages of Ku’e Petitions against annexation. The 1970s marked the beginning of the Hawaiian renaissance movement which resulted in the protection of Kaho`olawe from military bombing, the Hokule`a voyages, the recognition of Hawaiian cultural rights and the creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Just as in 1893, we have a new “Committee on Safety” made up of some descendants of those who overthrew Queen Lili‘uokalani, who have filled our courts system with legal attacks against Hawaiian programs. In order for Hawaiians to hold onto our programs, reclaim our heritage, culture, and identity, we must be allowed to control our own destiny. Federal recognition is a step toward Native Hawaiians not just surviving but thriving in our own homeland.

Alice Parker January 17, 2012 · 9:46 pm

Aloha to the beautiful people of Hawaii. I support any compensation that the US can offer although as in the case of Native Americans, it is weak at best. What the US and whites in general have done to native cultures is appalling. Any restitution has my support but it is never enough. I think of Bruddah IZ and Hawaii ’78 and breaks my heart. I love Hawaii and the Hawaiian people. So Aloha and Mahalo to you my friends.

Paul de Silvan January 18, 2012 · 12:33 am

It is wrong to grant special rights and privileges to some Americans with less tha 1 percent native Hawaiian blood and to give the same unconditionally to future generations with a perpetually decreasing blood quantum. We are creating a future society divided by a magical racial tag. It is immoral and probably unconstitutional. Hawaiians were never an Indian tribe. At the time of the revolution most inhabitants of this multiracial society had no native blood. Now they seek to create a new racial naton within a nation which goes way beyond recognizing a tribe.

Deb White January 18, 2012 · 3:47 am

For you people getting your info out of a book, does it really matter which story is right? Hawaii was the homeland of Hawaiians. Did the foreigners come here due to the nice weather? No matter what the story, who is a native Hawaiian? I am considered a native, but I do not qualify for Hawaiian homestead! No, because I am not 50 percent. My kids don’t qualify for Hawaiian programs! So why does it matter what the true story is? We are suppose to step forward and be counted. The Akaka Bill, will us mixed-race people get a piece of the rock? You want our say, but there is nothing in it for us. Hawaii, no more!

Shelley January 18, 2012 · 4:25 am

The thing I wanted to clarify most was that Hawai`i was NOT annexed in 1898. It may sound like semantics, but I think it’s a crucial distinction. What was passed in 1898 was the Newlands Resolution, which was a joint-resolution passed by the US Congress. It was and is an internal/domestic resolution and has no power outside of America. At that time Hawai`i was very clearly it’s own country and it isn’t possible that the US ‘annexed’ Hawaii through a joint-resolution–they would need a treaty of annexation, which was never ratified. For example, America could not today pass legislation that makes another country part of the US, nor could the State of California say, “aaaaand, now Utah is also ours”–there has to be an agreement between parties. US claims in Hawai`i are dubious at best. And my fear with the Akaka bill is the appearance of acquiescence. It is an opportunity to further legitimize illegitimate claims to Hawai`i. It is a classic case of manufactured consent, a ploy to make it look like Hawaiians are saying ‘yes’ to being a part of America.

Erin Gorai January 18, 2012 · 7:15 am

I’m 1/2 Hawaiian & 1/2 Irish, born & raised in Honolulu, Hawaii, currently relocated to Washington State. What happened to the Hawaiian Kingdom is a disgrace, the bottom line is Hawaii was taken illegally. This needs to be fixed.

Gavin Silva January 18, 2012 · 4:00 pm

I think that it’s important for people to consider the contemporary situation and the facts that surround this issue.

//hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/09/hawaiian-sovereignty-clarifying-the-record/

Dr. Keanu Sai clears up some of the facts surrounding the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty. Kenneth R. Conklin states, “Unfortunately this “learning network” article is delivering factual falsehoods and lousy interpretation to the readers.” and then proceeds to list what he believes are “truths”. After reading this article it makes me question how credible these “truths” really are.

I think it is important that an article like this is written to educate people who may not have learned of the Hawaiians plight. However, it is important to remember the facts.

Kealii Makekau January 19, 2012 · 10:11 am

After the coup d’état on January 17, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani of the Kingdom of Hawai`i (also known as the Hawaiian Kingdom, Government of the Hawaiian Islands) made a formal protest to the superior forces of the United States of America and no other. President Cleveland states: “Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice.” “Can the United States consistently insist that other nations shall respect the independence of Hawaii while not respecting it themselves? Our Government was the first to recognize the independence of the Islands, and it should be the last to acquire sovereignty over them by force and fraud.”

Due to admitted acts of insurgency, rebellion and the overthrow of the Constitutional Monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, the de jure Nation is under a continued impairment and is properly considered as an irregular state. The unlawful acts and seditious agreements between the United States Foreign Minister, John L. Stevens, the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, financiers, and naval representatives and armed forces to overthrow the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai’i and establish and claim de facto Provisional Government status and capacity are void and of no effect from the very inception and implementation of their conspiratorial scheme until the end of time itself. No Sovereign dominion accrued to nor is extended to the usurpers, nor their heirs or assigns, and were and are destined by their unlawful acts and omissions to remain de facto forever.

The acknowledged force and threat of force used to overthrow the Constitutional Government of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, in contravention of long recognized principles of international law, left the de jure Government in exile, and leaves the de facto Government in want of lawful authority and dominion. It is this plus the Newlands resolution, “a violation of the United States of America constitution” in which the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.

Today the State of Hawaii and its Office of Hawaiian Affairs move fourth in a manner not compliant to the rule of law, thus shrugging the burden of liberty and morality back onto to what it calls its predecessors the U.S.A. It is this type of disrespect that not only clouds the title “Authority” to land here in Hawaii but also keeps the people of Hawaii both native and non-native alike in a disenfranchised environment.

It should be noted that this and things like federal recognition has only continued this fraudulent action, thus providing the means for revisionists to continue the fraud promoted by the usurpers some 100 plus ago….

Nesse November 19, 2012 · 11:52 pm

Nick learn how to spell and I think what we did was wrong and still is wrong today.

Nona Kanaka January 14, 2013 · 12:17 am

Americans say Hawaiʻi would be a third world country today if we were not so “blessed” to be overthrown and occupied by America. Well, we Hawaiians have traveled the world, and Iʻve seen Samoa, Fiji, Tahiti, New Zealand and other Pacific Islands under a different regime. We would most likely be a part of Great Britain if history took a different turn. And I like the current situation of the Maori in New Zealand.

A.Y April 22, 2013 · 12:09 am

I am not from hawaii but I am a Pacific Islander and so of course i side with hawaiians because we all have our own cultures and our own way of life and because of these we survive together and protect our beautiful islands. I don’t mean to be rude but we don’t need Americans to survive,I am saying this because most of our islands are being influenced by Americans. And I tell you before you came we were fine and we will always be, our homelands are unique and created to nurture us, not for Americans to intrude and create your own versions of New York City in our islands.

Tania August 20, 2014 · 4:16 pm

I realize your article has been out for sometime and I just came across it today. It appears to me that the U.S.A. takes anything and everything it wants, with excessive force if need be. We did this with Hawaii and although we apologize we never gave it back. If I stole something from you that was extremely valuable and said “hey i am sorry, it was wrong for stealing this, forgive me, by the way, I am keeping it because it is mine now” that is how we treated Hawaii. I believe we should ask the natives what they want and let them vote on it and only the natives vote not the people who decided to go and live there. It needs to be treated fairly. The U.S.A. is very selfish and greedy this country is a bully and we should just keep what we have and be happy with it. Quit trying to rule the whole world and it would be a much happier place. Just because we believe in one thing doesn’t mean it is the same for others. That is a freedom USA doesn’t respect for other countries.

John Z November 28, 2014 · 3:33 pm

While the facts of the Hawaiian Overthrow are being debated, I wonder if it matters after the 1959 statehood election in which 94% of those voting supported statehood. It has been pointed out that only 35% of eligible voters made this decision and that there was no option for selecting independence, but, if the 2/3 who did not vote said “no” to statehood, then there would be a possible course of action to return Hawaiian independence. I hope all Americans will realize that their vote counts.

As far as negotiation of a Treaty of Cession, which political group now represents the Hawaiian People (there is the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Kingdom of Atooi, and perhaps more, which appear to be at odds with one another) and how would one determine who is Hawaiian and who is not?

As far as the legal aspects of the annexation, I have to say “legal-smeegal”. There are many examples of illegal actions by the US government and other countries that, having not been remedied in a timely manner, have become “the way it is”. (Anyone want to debate the illegal inauguration of George W. Bush?) At what point in time does the question become moot?

I am not opposed to a Treaty of Cession, nor opposed to returning Hawaiian Independence. However, there are over 100 years of contracts and agreements that cannot be ignored, no matter how illegal the foundation of those agreements. Nor am I opposed to something like the Akaka bill, although, as the Office of Hawaiian Affair has shown, the “fix” might be worse than leaving things alone.

The time for debate on the facts is over. The question now should be, “What are you going to do about it?”

Allan T May 28, 2015 · 8:10 am

If you acquire something through means of theft, fraud, threats, violence and the like, then if you wish to be righteous, you should return it with an apology. While it would be very difficult with something so grand as the State of Hawaii, and to be truly fair, should take into consideration fairness to innocent investors and land owners, it seems like the path of doing right calls out for attention. Perhaps an agreement with the heirs of families who lost their property rights might work? I am not certain, but again, to be just, the issue should not merely be dismissed.

Ben V Hoff August 11, 2015 · 6:34 pm

Is James Michener’s book, “Hawaii”, an accurate account of what happened? Michener was a Pulitzer Prize recipient and according to Wiki, acknowledged for his research for his books.