Who did we buy Hawaii from

1. The immediate seller: no single sovereign “sold” Hawaii—Congress annexed it by joint resolution

The formal transfer that made Hawaii part of the United States was not a purchase from a recognized Hawaiian sovereign in the conventional sense but a Congressional act: the Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1898, which enrolled annexation into U.S. law ^[1]. That resolution followed months of political maneuvering after the 1893 overthrow and was the legal instrument by which the United States asserted control rather than a bilateral land sale recorded as a treaty of cession ^[1].

2. The context: overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom created the opening for annexation

The overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani in January 1893 was carried out by a small group of mostly American and European businessmen and planters who benefited from sugar and pineapple interests; that coup was supported by the U.S. minister to Hawaii and the presence of U.S. troops aboard the USS Boston—facts central to later disputes over legitimacy ^{[2] [5]}. Native Hawaiians and the deposed queen protested these events, and multiple contemporaneous complaints and petitions opposing annexation were lodged with the U.S. government ^[3].

3. Economic drivers: plantation elites pushed annexation to secure markets and tariff advantages

American economic influence had long reshaped Hawaiian politics: by the 1890s the islands were economically enmeshed with the U.S., shipping the vast majority of exports to the mainland and relying on U.S. markets, a dependency that made annexation attractive to plantation owners and “Big Five” corporations who profited from sugar and pineapple ^{[2] [4]}. Key businessmen and companies that profited from plantation expansion pressed American policymakers for political arrangements that protected their trade and investment interests ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Conflicting narratives and official findings: investigations and protests

After the overthrow, President Grover Cleveland—an anti-imperialist—blocked an early treaty of annexation and ordered an investigation into the events; subsequent inquiries included the Morgan Report, which cleared U.S. military forces of complicity in the overthrow, while many native Hawaiians and other observers disputed that conclusion and continued to characterize the takeover as illegitimate ^{[4] [2]}. The existence of a large, organized petition against annexation in 1897 shows explicit Hawaiian opposition to becoming U.S. territory, yet Congress proceeded in 1898 amid shifting geopolitical concerns ^{[3] [1]}.

5. Institutional outcome: territory to statehood and enduring grievances

Following annexation by joint resolution, the islands were organized as the Territory of Hawaii in 1900 and remained a U.S. territory until statehood on August 21, 1959, when most territorial land was admitted as the 50th state ^[4]. Even a century later, many native Hawaiians and scholars maintain that the U.S. acquisition was wrongful and imposed by corporate and imperial interests, a contention reflected in historical accounts and contemporary movements seeking redress or land repatriation ^{[5] [3]}.

6. What this question really asks—and what evidence shows

If “Who did we buy Hawaii from?” implies a single, consensual seller accepting payment, the historical record in the provided sources does not support that framing: annexation resulted from a coup aided by business and diplomatic pressure, followed by a Congressional joint resolution rather than a standard purchase from the reigning monarch; Queen Liliʻuokalani and organized Hawaiian petitioners opposed the transfer ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Sources show economic motives among U.S. planters and corporate actors and a contested legal and moral legacy, with some official U.S. investigations exonerating military actors even as native opposition and claims of injustice persisted ^{[4] [2]}.