Images of Old Hawaiʻi

You are here: Home / Categories

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The Apology & the Supreme Court

On March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and rendered a decision on a case between the State of Hawaiʻi and OHA relating to the transfer of ceded lands.

In that decision, the US Supreme Court discusses the 1993 ‘Apology’ Resolution, as well as makes references to Hawaiian Sovereignty. The following are quotes from the US Supreme Court decision:

“In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).”

“Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawai‘i ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands).”

“The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’” “Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i. … The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”

“In 1959, Congress admitted Hawai‘i to the Union (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, ‘the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.’”

“Hawai‘i state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. In 1993, Congress’ joint Apology Resolution “apologize[d]” for this country’s role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and declared that nothing in the resolution was ‘intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’”

“In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution ‘to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawai‘i and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.’ Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, … (hereinafter Apology Resolution).”

“Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution ‘strips Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer’ the lands that the United States held in “absolute fee” and “grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union”. We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.”

“The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.”

“The resolution’s first substantive provision uses six verbs, all of which are conciliatory or precatory. Specifically, Congress ‘acknowledge[d] the historical significance’ of the monarchy’s over-throw, ‘recognize[d] and commend[ed] efforts of reconciliation’ with native Hawaiians, ‘apologize[d] to [n]ative Hawaiians’ for the overthrow, ‘expresse[d] [Congress’s] commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow,’ and ‘urge[d] the President … to also acknowledge [those]ramifications’.”

“Such terms are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights – especially those that are enforceable against the cosovereign States.”

“The Apology Resolution’s second and final substantive provision is a disclaimer, which provides: ‘Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’ By its terms, speaks only to those who may or may not have ‘claims against the United States.’”

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawai‘i Seven

“The Alien Registration Act of 1940, better known as the ‘Smith Act,’ was initially designed to monitor immigrants and prosecute those suspected of collaborating with fascist enemy powers.”

“But after World War II, as relations with the US and Soviet Union changed from reluctant allies to avowed enemies, the Justice Department turned the Smith Act into a weapon against the left, manipulating the law to target American citizens alleged to be leaders of the Communist Party.”  (DeLauder, University of Washington)

“The Alien Registration Act was introduced by Virginia Congressman Howard Smith, passed by Congress, and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, World War II was raging in Europe and Asia and Congress, worried about espionage, passed the law to keep track of immigrant noncitizens.”

“It required adult noncitizens to register with the federal government and be fingerprinted.  (DeLauder, University of Washington)

Then, in the Islands, seven were arrested at or near their homes in the morning of August 28, 1951 and were charged with “conspiring with each other”. “According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy has continued since April 1, 1945.” (Star Bulletin, August 29, 1951)

The “Hawaii Seven” were Jack Wayne Hall, John Ernest Reinecke, Jack Denishi Kimoto, Koji Ariyoshi, Dwight James Freeman, Charles Kazuyuki Fujimoto and Eileen Toshiko Fujimoto. (State Bulletin)

“The arrests came when sugar negotiations were in progress and on the day of the arrest, the ILWU sugar negotiating committee came to the Federal building to hold a conference with Hall, who was held in custody there. The arrests came when 750 ILWU pine workers were on strike on Lanai.” (Honolulu Record)

“Six defendants spent a week in jail while $15,000 bail was being raised for each. For travel outside of Oahu, an additional $10,000 was required.” (Star Bulletin)

“The longest and hardest fought case in the Territory’s history lasted seven and a half months from late 1952 to the summer of 1953 in the whipped up atmosphere of cold-war McCarthyism.” (Honolulu Record)

“Hawaii’s seven top Communists, including Longshore Boss Jack W Hall, were convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the Government today [June 19, 1953] and stevedores immediately halted work on all island docks, possibly foreruning a general protest strike.”

“Within two hours after the verdict was announced Hall’s International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union suspended negotiations on a new contract and longshoremen began walking off the job at Castle and Cook Pier 32.”

“Conviction of the ‘Hawaii seven’ brings to 51 the number of United States Red leaders convicted since the Nation’s 11 top Communists were found guilty in New York in 1949.”  (The Tribune, Pennsylvania, June 20, 1953)

They appealed … “The US Court of Appeals, acting in line with the Supreme Court’s California Reds ruling of last June, Monday reversed the Smith Act convictions of seven persons in Hawaii and four in the State of Washington.” (Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs)

(The “US  Supreme Court established a distinction between advocacy of a political doctrine and advocacy of action.” (Advertiser))

The Hawaii Seven were contacted after the Ninth Circuit reversal and provided the following comments to the Honolulu Record:

Jack W. Hall. “This period has certainly been a time when we as a union found out who our friends are. I found out as an individual, too Prom the beginning, I have had confidence that our union program and my part in it would be vindicated.”

Jack D. Kimoto. “The acquittal of the Hawaii Seven means a resounding defeat for reactionary elements who used the Smith Act as a vehicle in their conspiracy to smash militant trade unionism and progressive political movement in Hawaii The vehicle, itself, is on the way to the ash heap of History I congratulate everyone who did his share to defeat this abominable conspiracy.”

Charles K. Fujimoto. “I am happy that the courts have finally handed down a decision in our favor. It is a victory not only for the Seven, but for all Americans in the preservation of their civil liberties.”

Eileen Fujimoto. “I want to thank all the ILWU members, our attorneys and friends and all those who had the intellectual integrity and courage to support us in our fight for those basic civil rights guaranteed all Americans.”

Dr. John Reinecke. “My strongest impressions after more than six years of the Smith Act case and 10 years as one of the targets of local witch-hunting are of the kindliness of the average person, but also of a very general lack of civic courage.”

Koji Ariyoshi. “The reversal of the Smith Act conviction shows once again that laws are not always right, that government, or that part of government that enforces the laws, is not always right The Bill of Rights which protects all Americans finally passed after a long struggle by democratic minded Americans The Smith Act must be repealed.”

Dwight James Freeman. “I’m happy about the reversal of course, but it seems an awful shame that so much time and money and energy should have been required to fight charges that should never have been made and a case that should never have been in court.”

© 2026 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Bull Pen

Betty Jean O’Hara was “born in Chicago, Illinois in 1913, the year preceding the 1st World War. The early years of (her) life were happy and normal. Being the only child of a physician, (she) was given the best schooling in preparation for a career.”

“(Her) parents were Catholic, and were strict in the regimentation of (her) life. (She) was permitted however to attend parties and movies with other children (her) age.”

At about the age of 16, she met a girl and her boyfriend at a party. The girl was covered in fine jewelry and nice clothes. Young, and easily led, she “agreed to their sordid plans and went into the business of the ‘oldest profession.’” A month later, she left home and headed to San Francisco. (O’Hara)

“Jean O’Hara was a pretty girl who became a handsome woman. She was ‘black Irish,’ fair-skinned with a clear complexion which set off her dark eyes, raven hair, and even her features. She stood about 5’4” and at 120 pounds was slender by that era’s standards. Her good looks and classy bearing would serve her well.” (Bailey & Farber)

“(O’Hara) got used to the fast money.”

“(She) started working in one of the better class houses, and (she) became definitely committed to the practice of prostitution. (Her) father and mother tried every means available to frighten (her) into going home …”

“… but being headstrong, and enticed by the seemingly fabulous earnings (she) resisted their every attempt. Although (she) actually loathed the life, (her) sense of shame and sin aroused in (her) a perverse independence.” (O’Hara)

In mid-1938, O’Hara arrived in Honolulu from San Francisco.

There was an unofficial system of regulated prostitution in the Islands, with the also unofficial sanction of the military. Army military police and the Navy shore patrol helped monitor it.

All girls had to live in the houses where they worked; no white girls were allowed on the other side of River Street. The Army, Navy, and civilian police picketed any house violating the rules, and no man could enter it. According to the agreement, the civil police regulated prostitution “with full cooperation by the Army and Navy.” (Greer)

“The business of procuring girls to work in the brothels, or “factories”, before the war (WWII,) was usually handled by the same … “procurer.” He handled nothing but the transportation of the girls. … The fee for procuring a girl from the mainland rage(d) from $500 to $1,000 depending on the looks and the capability of the girl.” (O’Hara)

A detective would meet the ships coming in and the girls were taken to the ‘receiving station.’ (In O’Hara’s case, that was the Blaisdell Hotel on Fort Street.) The girls were explained the rules – in no uncertain terms, the girls were told that any violation of the rules meant banishment from the Territory.

All of the girls have a Territorial tax book and a Territorial license (they were licensed as ‘entertainers,’) which cost each $1 per year. In addition, every month the Vice Squad would collect an unofficial tax of $30 per girl from the brothels.

The girls paid Federal income taxes, as well as state taxes. “It has been said that (the) girls and Madames are the heaviest tax payers in Honolulu. … Each girl in Honolulu can average from $4,000 per month to $5,000 per month. … Taxes are collected by the Madame of the house, who also files the returns for them.” (O’Hara)

Before WWII, the girls usually started to work around 1 pm, and ended around 5 am. The ‘blackout’ during the war meant they worked from 8 am to noon.

“Very few girls made under a $100 a day, some of these double that and some of them made over $300 a day. It all depends upon the girl. She can make as much as she wants.”

“The price charged is $3.00 per date. Of this, the Madame gets one dollar. Out of the remaining two dollars, the girl must pay the Madame for her room and board and laundry.” (O’Hara)

The Madames were women from the mainland. Although prostitution was not legal, they needed permission from the local Police before operating.

When WWII broke out, and martial law was in effect, the military called the shots (1941-1943.) A “substantial number” of prostitutes were brought to Honolulu from the mainland under military priorities – a common rumor – and that under military government prostitution “flourished.” (Greer)

Most brothels required girls to see at least 100 men a day and to work at least 20 days per month.

To speed things along, O’Hara is credited with inventing the ‘bull pen’ system where a single prostitute would work three rooms in rotation (including maid service.)

In one room a man would be undressing, in a second room the prostitute would be having sex, and in the third room the man would be dressing. (The guy had three minutes to achieve release, after which she said ‘aloha’ and was off to the next room while he washed up and got dressed.) (McNeill)

After a few months’ work in a Hotel Street brothel, she had amassed a sizable bankroll. She leased a house near Waikiki Beach with a friend.

“The life of a prostitute is not an easy one, and the stringent rules of the Honolulu Police Department, headed by Chief of Police Gabrielson, left her no more freedom that a prisoner.”

O’Hara broke the rules (often) and ended up getting the regular attention of the Police, including Gabrielson. She was fined, imprisoned and beat black and blue, with two broken ribs.

O’Hara filed a $100,000 lawsuit in 1941 against the Police department for her two broken ribs and black eyes. The lawsuit was dropped, but conflicts with the Police continued.

O’Hara later married a ‘local boy’ and quit the business. She was a prostitute for 13-years, and temporarily was a Madame. She had homes in Waikiki and Pacific Heights.

After leaving the brothels, “(her) only desire (was) to live a useful family life, and help others to live and let live, as one resurrected from the sordid flesh mines of humanity.”

In 1944, she wrote a booklet, ‘My Life as a Honolulu Prostitute.’ She died in 1973. (Lots of information here is from that booklet.)

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … Battle of Bunker Hill

Following the battles at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, colonial forces from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island formed a New England army to surround and contain the British forces occupying Boston.

To prevent British soldiers from conducting further attacks on the countryside after the march to Lexington and Concord, 20,000 provincial militiamen encircle Boston in the spring of 1775. The Charlestown peninsula and Dorchester Heights, commanding both the city of Boston and Boston harbor, lie abandoned.  This has been referred to as the Siege of Boston.

Hoping to make the British “masters of these heights,” General Gage, in conference with Major Generals William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne, plans to seize the neglected positions before the colonists do so.

News of Gage’s intent filters across from Boston and down from New Hampshire on June 15. Acting quickly on this intelligence, the Massachusetts Committee of Safety orders General Artemas Ward, commander of the colonial militia surrounding Boston, to race the British to the Charlestown peninsula, capture Bunker Hill, and then seize the Dorchester hills.

Colonel William Prescott and General Israel Putnam were the ranking officers in the expedition to Charlestown, however Prescott, being from Massachusetts, commanded the majority of the men.

The following day, Ward orders Colonel William Prescott, with the aid of one thousand colonial troops, to take and fortify Bunker Hill. Unknown to the British, Prescott and his troops arrive at the Charlestown peninsula that same night.

Prescott and other officers ultimately decide to bypass Bunker Hill, rising 110 feet and situated near the only route back to Cambridge, and instead give “orders to march” to Breed’s Hill, a smaller mount further south and within cannon range of Boston and British ships in the harbor.  They built an earthen fortress 160-feet long and 30-feet high atop the hill.  (Massachusetts Historical Society)

For generations many have argued over who ultimately chose where to fortify a position on the lower, more centrally located hill known today as “Breed’s Hill,” rather than the higher prominence known today as “Bunker Hill.”

But on that night, construction began sometime around midnight as hundreds of men with pickaxes and shovels constructed a fort atop the lower hill overlooking the settlement of Charlestown and the beaches along the Harbor. (NPS)

Astonished British generals wake on the morning of June 17 to discover the newly erected defenses. As the day continues, British ships bombard the untrained militia as they work, and Colonel Prescott walks the fortifications to raise morale. Thirsty and tired, the soldiers receive “no refreshment.” Back in Boston, Gage summons a war council.

At three o’clock in the afternoon, over 2,000 British soldiers, commanded by General Howe, land on the Charlestown shore. Continental snipers fire at the British as they march, and General Howe orders a combustible shell launched on Charlestown.  Amid smoke and flames, local inhabitants flee their homes in order to escape “Charlestown’s dismal fate.”

From rooftops and hilltops, spectators watch Charlestown burn. The clear day affords views to residents as far off as Braintree, including Abigail Adams and eight-year-old John Quincy Adams, who later recalls,

“The year 1775 was the eighth year of my age. Among the first fruits of the War, was the expulsion of my father’s family from their peaceful abode in Boston, to take refuge in his and my native town of Braintree….”

“For the space of twelve months my mother with her infant children dwelt, liable every hour of the day and of the night to be butchered in cold blood, or taken and carried into Boston as hostages, by any foraging or marauding detachment of men …”

“My father was separated from his family, on his way to attend the same continental Congress, and there my mother, with her children lived in unintermitted danger of being consumed with them all in a conflagration kindled by a torch in the same hands which on the 17th. of June lighted the fires in Charlestown.”

“I saw with my own eyes those fires, and heard Britannia’s thunders in the Battle of Bunker’s hill and witnessed the tears of my mother and mingled with them my own, at the fall of Warren a dear friend of my father, and a beloved Physician to me.”  (John Quincy Adams, National Archives)

British troops headed uphill, where they are frustrated by fences, pits, and tall grass. In dust and heat, the continental militia wait behind their walls. They hold fire until the British are in within 150 feet of the fortifications.

(Contrary to urban legend, there’s no evidence anyone ordered the men to hold their fire until they saw “the whites” of the enemies’ eyes. The writer Parson Weems seems to have invented this decades later.)

The Americans opened fire at about 50 yards, much too distant to see anyone’s eyes. However, one commander did tell his men to wait until they could see the splash guards – called half-gaiters – that British soldiers wore around their calves.)  (Smithsonian)

“Heavy and severe Fire” decimates the thick British ranks. Recoiling from the first attack, General Howe relies on “the Bravery of the King’s Troops”.

He immediately ordered his stumbling and disordered soldiers to make a second charge, this time only at the hill and rail fence. Again the colonists slaughter the King’s troops with their fire.

An hour passed as the British recover from the two attacks. They receive 400 new troops from Boston. A third time, General Howe orders his soldiers, with the help of the reinforcements, to charge the breastworks and the rail fence.

Prescott’s men again waited until the last minute to open fire. This time, they are running out of ammunition and are soon overrun by the British; then they fought with rocks and the butts of their muskets.

No longer able to withstand the British attack, Prescott’s men retreat north over the road to Cambridge, as General Stark’s New Hampshire troops cover them in the rear.

One of the last to abandon the fort on Breed’s Hill, Joseph Warren was killed as he retreats, and he was mourned with “the tears of multitudes.” In total, 140 colonists are dead and 271 are wounded. Before dark, the British again command the Charleston peninsula, though 226 British lie dead and 828 are wounded.

Despite renewed British control of the peninsula, colonial forces still trap the British in Boston. As supply issues and shortages plague them, the British prepare for further military commitment to defeat the “poor and ignorant” colonists. Meanwhile, the colonies scramble to assemble more soldiers.

Britain replaced General Gage with General Howe in early October 1775, and two weeks after the battle at Breed’s Hill, on July 2, 1775, George Washington arrived in Cambridge to take command of the Continental Army. (Massachusetts Historical Society)

Getting the Names Straight

Popularly known as ‘The Battle of Bunker Hill,’ as noted, the battle actually occurred on Breed’s Hill.

 The National Park Service, on their Boston National Historical Park website, notes that Historian Richard  Ketchum stated,

To the south of [Bunker Hill], and connected to it by a lower, sloping ridge, was a height of land not sufficiently distinguished to bear any particular name. Some called it Charlestown Hill;  others, considering it an appendage of Bunker Hill, referred to it by that title;

while some of the local people, out of deference to a farmer whose cattle grazed there, called it Breed’s. Its steep western flank, covered with orchards and gardens, leveled out near the settlement of Charlestown.

By 1775, the population of Charlestown hovered around 2,000 to 3,000 people with 400 structures in it, mostly situated on the south shore facing Boston. Bunker and Breed’s Hills, named after George Bunker and Ebenezer Breed, were mostly undeveloped with some farmhouses and pastures.

The Battle of Bunker Hill, also called the Battle of Breed’s Hill, (June 17, 1775), was the first major battle of the American Revolution, fought in Charlestown (now part of Boston) during the Siege of Boston.

Click the following link to a general summary about the Battle of Bunker Hill:

Click to access Battle-of-Bunker-Hill-SAR-RT.pdf

Click to access Battle-of-Bunker-Hill.pdf

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

About 250 Years Ago … George Washington

“Father of His Country,” “The Sage of Mount Vernon,” “The Foundingest Father of them all” … Martha Washington called him her “Old Man.”

On April 30, 1789, George Washington, standing on the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York, took his oath of office as the first President of the United States.  He wrote James Madison,

“As the first of every thing, in our situation will serve to establish a Precedent, it is devoutly wished on my part, that these precedents may be fixed on true principles.”

Born in 1732 into a Virginia planter family, he learned the morals, manners and body of knowledge requisite for an 18th century Virginia gentleman.

The unexpected death of their father, when George Washington was eleven, prevented him from receiving a classical, Latin-based education at Appleby School in England. Instead, private tutors and possibly a local school in Fredericksburg provided the young man with the only formal instruction he would receive.

Throughout his life, George Washington felt keenly embarrassed by his lack of a formal education, privately admitting that he was “conscious of a defective education,” and for good reason.

The majority of the founders were college-educated gentleman who had spent years reading law and studying the classics. Washington was one of the few in his generation who rose to leadership without these advantages.

In addition to reading, writing, and basic legal forms, Washington studied geometry and trigonometry – in preparation for his first career as a surveyor – and manners – which would shape his character and conduct for the rest of his life. 

The printed word, as much as the trials of battle, forged George Washington the soldier and was central to his efforts to create disciplined, effective armies.

The war stories told by his half-brother, Lawrence Washington, an officer in the Virginia militia likely ignited Washington’s interest in a military career, but printed histories may have also inspired him.

He pursued two intertwined interests: military arts and western expansion.

In 1747, Washington executed his first practice surveys, and in 1749 he secured the lucrative office of county surveyor in Culpeper County, Virginia.  At 16 he helped survey Shenandoah lands for Thomas, Lord Fairfax.

Commissioned a lieutenant colonel in 1754, he fought the first skirmishes of what grew into the French and Indian War. The next year, as an aide to Gen. Edward Braddock, he escaped injury although four bullets ripped his coat and two horses were shot from under him.

In March 1755, Washington rejoined the British Army, this time as an unpaid aide-de-camp to General Edward Braddock. However, he was still seen as a second-rate aide and Braddock did not listen to colonists despite their experiences. The result was a disaster.

After years of frustration, Washington resigned from the British Army for good. Continuing to serve with his men was clearly his preference, but he could no longer do so.

From 1759 to the outbreak of the American Revolution, Washington managed his lands around Mount Vernon and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses.

In both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, George Washington faced the frustrating task of transforming liberty-loving colonists into disciplined soldiers.

Officers were often as unfamiliar with the basic commands as their troops, and Washington urged them to read military manuals. One Hessian soldier recalled with surprise the books found in the captured bags of American officers: “This was a true indication that the officers of this army studied the art of war while in camp.”

Married to a widow, Martha Dandridge Custis, he devoted himself to a busy and happy life. But like his fellow planters, Washington felt himself exploited by British merchants and hampered by British regulations. As the quarrel with the mother country grew acute, he moderately but firmly voiced his resistance to the restrictions.

Washington knew British control extend too far within the government as well. As the British Parliament continued to tax the colonies his anger grew.

The first time George Washington ran for public office, he lost.  Despite the loss, Washington decided to run again for the House of Burgesses. It seems that by November 1757, some already knew Washington’s intentions to run in Frederick County.

The last session of the House of Burgesses Washington attended was in May 1774. During the session burgesses called for a day of “fasting, Humiliation and prayer,” to show support to those being punished by Parliament for the Boston Tea Party.

British Governor Dunmore promptly dissolved the House of Burgesses and did not recall it until June 1775.

When the Second Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in May 1775, Congress created the Continental Army on June 14, 1775, and John Adams nominated George Washington to serve as the army’s Commander-in- Chief.

On June 16, 1775, Washington addressed the Continental Congress … “Mr President, Tho’ I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities & Military experience may not be equal to the extensive & important Trust:”

“However, as the Congress desire i⟨t⟩ I will enter upon the momentous duty, & exert every power I Possess In their service & for the Support of the glorious Cause: I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their Approbation.”

“But lest some unlucky event should happen unfavourable to my reputation, I beg it may be rememberd by every Gentn in the room, that I this day declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think my self equal to the Command I ⟨am⟩ honoured with.”

“As to pay, Sir, I beg leave to Assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this Arduous emploiment at the expence of my domestk ease & happi⟨ness⟩ I do not wish to make any proffit from it: I will keep an exact Account of my expences; those I doubt not they will discharge & that is all I desire.” (Washington, National Archives)

On July 3, 1775, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, he took command of his ill-trained troops and embarked upon a war that was to last six grueling years.

Despite having little practical experience in managing large, conventional armies, Washington proved to be a capable and resilient leader of the American military forces during the Revolutionary War.

While he lost more battles than he won, Washington employed a winning strategy that included victories at the Battle of Trenton in 1776 and Yorktown in 1781.

First President of the United States

Washington longed to retire to his fields at Mount Vernon. But he soon realized that the Nation under its Articles of Confederation was not functioning well, so he became a prime mover in the steps leading to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

When the new Constitution was ratified, the Electoral College unanimously elected Washington President.

He did not infringe upon the policy making powers that he felt the Constitution gave Congress. But the determination of foreign policy became principally a Presidential concern.

When the French Revolution led to a major war between France and England, Washington refused to accept entirely the recommendations of either his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was pro-French, or his Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who was pro-British. Rather, he insisted upon a neutral course until the United States could grow stronger.

He retired at the end of his second term.  In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington’s principal concern was for the safety of the eight-year-old Constitution. He believed that the stability of the Republic was threatened by the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation’s domestic affairs.

White House

George Washington, selected the site for the White House in 1791, but he never lived in it. The following year, the cornerstone was laid and a design submitted by Irish-born architect James Hoban was chosen. After eight years of construction, President John Adams (the 2nd US President) and his wife Abigail moved into the still-unfinished residence.

George Washington’s Mount Vernon mansion is ten times the size of the average home in colonial Virginia.  Mount Vernon was the home of George Washington.

Washington enjoyed less than three years of retirement at Mount Vernon; he died of a throat infection December 14, 1799. For months the Nation mourned him.  (White House)

Click the following link to a general summary about George Washington:

Click to access George-Washington.pdf

© 2026 Ho‘okuleana LLC