Seems to me that what you're saying is: my race is better than your race therefore I have a better claim to this place than you. Is that essentially it?

If your argument does not hinge on Maoli supremacy, then I wonder: is it moral to exclude the non-native Hawaiian descendants of pre-1893 plantation workers as having a rightful claim to Hawaii? Because they were 1) here in Hawaii before the overthrow and 2) brought in at the request of the king and with the promise of full participation in Hawaiian society. 

Additional moral qualm: if the Overthrowers were Hawaiian subjects, why didn't they have the moral right to overthrow the corrupt, narcokleptocratic monarchy?

Final legal conundrum: if annexaion by conquest was legally permissible in 1893 under international law; and if you don't acccept US legal control over Hawaii; why do you care what the US Conatition may or may not say about annexation through a treaty ratified by a simple majority?