> The native-born citizens in the Committee of Safety [0] were almost all second and third generation descendants of Americans. No ethnic Hawaiians were members.
So because of their ethnicity, they don't count as "native" Hawaiians despite having been born on the islands with birthright citizenship. Got it.
One begins to understand why they joined the "Committee of Safety" that plotted the overthrow of the monarchy, the same monarchy that was planning to revoke the relatively liberal constitution.
>While the committee was composed of private citizens, they acted with the ultimate goal of annexation with the United States.
Correct. Annexation was something that most people, in the US and in Hawaii, expected during the 19th century would happen eventually. Kamehameha III in the 1850s asked for annexation, but it didn't happen because of US internal politics.
>They were crucially supported by a contingent of US troops that surrounded the palace of the Hawaiian monarchy on the orders of the chief American diplomat, whose interests in annexation aligned with the committee.
US consul John Stevens was a member of the committee that plotted the overthrow of the monarchy. He exploited the time gap between Honolulu and Washington to ask for the soldiers on US Navy ships in the harbor to march off the ships, parade through the city, then march back on. When Washington learned of what Stevens had done he was fired, but it was too late; the queen had been intimidated into surrendering.
And don't even bother to bring up the Blount Report, because I can bring up the Morgan Report. My larger point is to, when discussing something you obviously didn't know anything about before today, not try to refute someone else by citing superficial readings of Wikipedia articles that you, again, had never looked at before today and go "A-ha! Got you!" Just don't.