The answer to this really depends on what prism you are viewing it from?
As a globe, we are pretty opposed to imperialism these days. China has started to dabble a little more in the South China Sea but we mostly have our nation states and there isn't really a lot of movement.
That was not the case at the time of annexation.
So, is it ethical to subsume a sovereign nation? No
Was it strategically justifiable at the time? Yes. If the United States had not annexed Hawaii, the Empire of Japan likely would have stepped in.
Hawaii has enormous strategic value and was then justifiable at the time of annexation.
That being said, and I hope this is an obvious statement, imperialism is not a good thing and is ethically problematic.
The colonies were the first in history to declare a completely democratic republic, just before the French did it in the French revolution. Their fight against the monarchy and enlightenment ideals. The American revolution showed that it was possible to stand up to tyranny and inspired many nations in Europe to do the same, just like France did.
The practice of planting, tending, and harvesting crops most likely led to a "surplus of food", which in turn led to the diversification of labor and advancement of society, since people now could focus on things other than farming.
Answer:
Okay so I believe that the trail of tears was the path the walked when they were forced into um I forgot the state sorry but I do know that they were forced out of they're home and had to go into one big native American reserve. The English men treated them horribly. The Englishmen gave them many different illnesses. Some races of native americans are gone because of it. To name one is iraqious. (I may have spelled some words wrong sorry)
