Examining what the historical and legal record actually shows about Hawaiian consent to U.S. governance

The short answer: According to the United States Congress, no.

In 1993, Congress passed Public Law 103-150, which states that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.”

This is not a claim made by sovereignty advocates—it is federal law, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. Understanding why Congress reached this conclusion requires examining the historical record.

What “Giving Up Sovereignty” Would Require

For a nation to transfer sovereignty to another nation, certain elements are typically required under international law:

Consent of the sovereign authority. A treaty or agreement in which the existing government formally transfers authority to another nation.

Consent of the people. A plebiscite or referendum in which the population agrees to the change in governance, particularly under modern standards of self-determination.

Absence of coercion. The transfer must be voluntary, not achieved through force or the threat of force.

When we examine the history of Hawaiʻi’s incorporation into the United States, each of these elements presents problems.

The Overthrow: What Happened in January 1893

On January 17, 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was removed from power. The circumstances of this removal are not disputed—they are documented in official U.S. records and acknowledged in federal law.

A group called the Committee of Safety, composed primarily of American and European businessmen, orchestrated the action. They were supported by John L. Stevens, the U.S. Minister to Hawaiʻi, who ordered U.S. Marines from the USS Boston to land in Honolulu.

Queen Liliʻuokalani did not consent to the transfer of power. Her formal statement of protest made this explicit:

“I, Liliuokalani, 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 said Provisional Government.

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

The Queen explicitly stated she was yielding to “superior force,” not consenting to a transfer of sovereignty. She expected the United States to “undo the action of its representative.”

President Cleveland’s Investigation

When President Grover Cleveland learned of these events, he withdrew the annexation treaty that had been submitted to the Senate. He sent Congressman James Blount to Hawaiʻi to investigate.

The Blount Report concluded that Minister Stevens had conspired with the revolutionaries and that the presence of U.S. troops was decisive in the success of the overthrow. Blount reported that the provisional government would have been unable to succeed without American support.

Cleveland addressed Congress on December 18, 1893. His characterization was blunt:

“By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.”

Cleveland attempted to restore Queen Liliʻuokalani to power but was unable to do so—the provisional government refused, and Congress did not act.

The Failed Treaty and the Joint Resolution

Following the overthrow, the provisional government (later the Republic of Hawaiʻi) sought annexation to the United States. Two separate treaties of annexation were submitted to the Senate:

The first, in 1893, was withdrawn by President Cleveland after the Blount investigation.

The second, in 1897, was submitted by President McKinley. This treaty failed to achieve the two-thirds majority required by the U.S. Constitution for treaty ratification.

With the treaty stalled, supporters of annexation took a different approach. They passed the Newlands Resolution, a joint resolution requiring only simple majorities in both houses of Congress. President McKinley signed this resolution on July 7, 1898.

The constitutional question this raises has never been resolved. The U.S. Constitution specifies that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” No other territory has been acquired by joint resolution without a valid treaty.

More fundamentally, the joint resolution was a unilateral act of the U.S. Congress. The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was not a party to this resolution. It expressed no Hawaiian consent.

The Kūʻē Petitions: What Hawaiians Actually Said

If there is any question about Hawaiian consent, the Kūʻē Petitions provide a direct answer.

In 1897, as annexation was being debated in Congress, Native Hawaiians organized a massive petition drive opposing annexation. Over 21,000 Kānaka Maoli—representing more than half the native population—signed petitions stating their opposition.

These petitions were presented to the U.S. Senate. Their message was clear: the Hawaiian people did not consent to annexation.

The petitions were discovered in the National Archives in the 1990s and have been studied by historians. They represent the largest documented expression of Hawaiian political will during this period—and that will was opposed to annexation.

The 1959 Statehood Vote

Some argue that whatever happened in the 19th century, Hawaiians consented to U.S. governance through the 1959 statehood vote. This argument requires examination.

The 1959 plebiscite offered voters two options: statehood or continued territorial status. Independence was not on the ballot.

The electorate included all residents of the territory—including military personnel and others who had moved to Hawaiʻi—not just Native Hawaiians or their descendants. Meanwhile, Native Hawaiians living elsewhere were not included.

International standards for self-determination plebiscites, as developed through UN practice, generally require that all options—including independence—be available, and that the voting population reflect the people whose self-determination is at issue.

Whether the 1959 vote met these standards is disputed. What is not disputed is that it did not offer the option of restored independence.

What Public Law 103-150 Concluded

After a century of these events, Congress examined the record and made formal findings. Public Law 103-150, passed in 1993, established as federal law that:

  • Hawaiʻi was “an independent nation” recognized by the United States and other countries
  • The overthrow occurred “with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States”
  • U.S. Minister Stevens “conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents”
  • Stevens “ordered the landing of United States armed naval forces”
  • Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty”
  • The United States apologizes “for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi”

These are not contested claims. They are the findings of the United States Congress, enacted into law.

Why This Matters

Some might ask: whatever the historical details, isn’t this ancient history? Hawaiʻi has been part of the United States for over 125 years.

But legal questions are not resolved by the passage of time alone. The United States itself acknowledged in 1993 that the historical record presents unresolved questions. Public Law 103-150 was titled as an apology—it was not titled a resolution or settlement.

The law urges Congress and the President to support “reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.” That reconciliation has not yet occurred.

Understanding this history matters for several reasons:

It explains why sovereignty remains a living issue for many Native Hawaiians, not a fringe position.

It clarifies that questioning Hawaiʻi’s legal status is not radical—it is consistent with what the federal government itself has acknowledged.

It provides context for ongoing discussions about Native Hawaiian self-determination, land rights, and political status.

Conclusion: What the Record Shows

Did Hawaiʻi ever give up its sovereignty?

The monarch did not consent—she explicitly protested.

The people did not consent—over 21,000 signed petitions opposing annexation.

The constitutional process was not followed—the annexation treaty failed to achieve ratification.

The statehood vote did not offer independence—only statehood or continued territorial status.

And the United States Congress itself concluded that Native Hawaiians “never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty.”

These are the facts. They are documented in official records. Many of them are codified in federal law. The question of what these facts mean—and what reconciliation should look like—remains open.

Sources: Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510); Blount Report (1893); President Cleveland’s Message to Congress (December 18, 1893); Kūʻē Petitions (National Archives); Newlands Resolution (1898)

,