Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 126

October 11, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

William Ansel Kinney

William Ansel Kinney was born October 16, 1860 in Honolulu. His parents were born in Canada, lived a while in Calais, Maine, then moved to Hawai‘i.

William first attended the Royal School at Honolulu, afterwards at O‘ahu College (Punahou – (1874–1877.)) During his boyhood, when out of school, he has been a clerk in a law office. He graduated from Michigan University Law School in 1883. (Michigan University)

He returned to the Islands; his first law partner was Arthur P Peterson. Then, in 1887 he became partners with William Owen Smith and Lorrin A. Thurston. (Kuykendall) From 1887-1888, he was a member of the House of Representatives, representing Hawai‘i Island.

Kinney was part of the team that drafted the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i (‘Bayonet Constitution.’) Other reforms to the government included replacement of the Kings cabinet. (Forbes)

He moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, about 1890 and practiced law there. “After several visits to the states about 1891 (his mother) came to live for a time at Salt Lake with her second son William A Kinney, then and for several years after a well-known attorney of this city. (Salt Lake Herald, April 9, 1897)

Following the overthrow of the Hawai‘i constitutional monarchy, “William A. Kinney, now a lawyer in Salt Lake City, but a former resident of the Sandwich Islands and one of the leading participants in the revolution of 1887…”

“… met the members of the committee (seeking Hawai‘i annexation to the US) at Ogden for the purpose of renewing old acquaintance, and was induced to accompany the body to Washington in an unofficial capacity as legal adviser.” (NY Times, February 4, 1893)

Kinney moved back to the Islands in 1893 and on August 16, 1893 he married Alice Vaughan McBryde in Honolulu. McBryde was the daughter of Judge Duncan McBryde, who laid the foundation for what later was to become McBryde Sugar Company. Not a planter himself (but encouraged by Kinney and Dillingham,) McBryde hired a few men to obtain seed, plow the land and haul cane.

The original plantation lands extended from Kōloa to the Hanapepe River giving the newly formed McBryde Sugar Company access to a port. At first, the ʻEleʻele sugar mill was used to grind the cane, but within a couple of year, the Directors knew that another mill would have to be built.

As fortune would have it, McBryde bought the large Cuban type mill originally destined for Molokai’s American Sugar Company, whose plans for a plantation had to be abandoned. (HSPA)

Following Queen Lili‘uokalani’s arrest in 1895, “Mr William A. Kinney … Without military experience, he was commissioned a captain, and afterward charged with the duty of Judge Advocate in attacking me, and those of my people who sought liberty from the foreign oppressor.” (Lili‘uokalani)

While critical of Kinney related to the trials in 1895, in 1909, Lili‘uokalani retained Kinney and others in her claim to Crown Lands.

“Mr Kinney was judge advocate for the United States in the trial of Queen Lili‘uokalani and as he says ‘I tried her, prosecuted her, and convicted her, and I am now her attorney. Of course there was never anything personal in the matter.’” (Hawaiian Gazette, July 26, 1910)

Queen Lili‘uokalani made a claim to Crown Lands as her personal property. Noting, “Her cause of action is predicated upon an alleged ‘vested equitable life interest’ to certain lands described in the petition, known as ‘crown lands,’ of which interest she was divested by the defendants.”

However, the US Court of Claims noted, “It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign and assume dominion over the country.”

The Court concluded, “The crown lands were the resourceful methods of income to sustain, in part at least, the dignity of the office to which they were inseparably attached. When the office ceased to exist they became as other lands of the Sovereignty and passed to the defendants as part and parcel of the public domain.”

The Court further noted, “The constitution of the Republic of Hawai‘i, as respects the crown lands, provided as follows: ‘That portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been heretofore, and now to be, the property of the Hawaiian Government …” (Lili‘uokalani v The United States, 1910)

Later, Kinney joined forces with Prince Kūhiō in fighting Governor Frear (and the Big 5’s hold on the Islands,) noting, “Simply that the plantations, finding Gov. Frear under fire on their account, have been trying to fix things up …”

“… for they do not propose to lose control of the governorship and the local Territorial government; and when they do, however justly, a determined cry will be raised by them for commission government.”

“(I)nsistent retention of medieval ideas on land and labor, is merely an illustration of the recognized principle that things are apt to move along the lines of least resistance.”

“When the plantations of Hawaii have either got to do the right thing in regard to homesteading or go to the wall, they will come to time, and they should be forced to that position, not by way of retaliation nor in a spirit of hostility but because it is right and just to Hawaii and to the mainland that this be done.” (Kinney, Testimony before US House of Representatives, 1912)

The matter related to appointment of the next Territorial Governor of Hawai‘i. Kinney wanted someone without ties to the Plantations.

Lucius Pinkham, from the mainland, but had prior Island business interests and noted by Kūhiō that the Hawaiians “are very fond of Pinkham and … believe he is their best friend,” got the appointment.

Kinney left the Islands shortly thereafter and lived in California, continuing with his legal profession; he died sometime after 1930 in California.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

William Ansel Kinney-(PP-51-9-001)-1895-400

William_Ansel_Kinney-WC-1883

Hawaiian_Military_Commission-Alexander George Morison Robertson, William Ansel Kinney, and Alfred Wellington Carter-(PP-51-9-001)-1895

Neumann addressing Military Court-PP-53-6-003-00001

Trial_of_1895_Counter-Revolution_in_Hawaii-Kinney at far right

Political cartoon depicting Kinney on the shoulder of a governor going after sugarcane plantation interests-1912

October 4, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

DOJ Opinion of October 4, 1988

“There is no provision in the Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Some suggest that Hawai‘i was never annexed to the United States and, as proof, refer to the October 4, 1988 Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice Opinion and a subsequent (March 12, 2000) Op-Ed by Steven Newcomb in the Advertiser to support their conclusion.

Some even go as far as adding a quote – “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion notes same. (That was the heading on Newcomb’s Op-Ed and apparently his opinion, not the Department of Justice’s.)

In fact, the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion makes the definitive statement, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898. Joint Res. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Again, the Senate had already rejected an annexation treaty, this one negotiated by President McKinley with Hawaii.”

“And again, Congress then considered a measure to annex the land by joint resolution. Indeed, Congress acted in explicit reliance on the procedure followed for the acquisition of Texas.”

Before we get far ahead of ourselves, we should first look at the noted Office of Legal Counsel Opinion and its purpose. While some would have you believe it was an opinion addressing Hawai‘i annexation, in fact, that Opinion was prepared to address “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea”.

The Opinion clearly notes on its first page, under Introduction and Summary, that “This responds to the requests, made by your Office (State Department) and an inter-agency working group, for analysis of the constitutional and statutory questions raised by a proposed presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea of the United States from its present breadth of three miles to twelve miles.”

The Opinion was not about Hawai‘i, nor its annexation – in fact, of the 26-pages of the Opinion (not counting appendices,) only 2-pages referenced the process of annexation of Hawai‘i. And Hawai‘i and its annexation to the US are not even mentioned in the Opinion’s Conclusion.

It does note, however, “(t)he constitutionality of the annexation of Hawai‘i, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act.”

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.”

“The stated justification for the joint resolution – the previous acquisition of Texas – simply ignores the reliance the 1845 Congress placed on its power to admit new states. It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

“Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawai‘i can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Annexation of Hawai‘i to the US was not a hostile takeover, it was something the Republic of Hawai‘i sought. “There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

“Whether the Republic is a government de facto or dejure it is entitled to American sympathy, and when it has been recognized, successively, by the United States and all other powers, first, as a government de facto and then as a rightful government, republican in form, and is in a successful career of constitutional authority, our national obligations and all our better sentiments compel us to admit its full power and authority to dispose of any question that concerns its sovereign will and the welfare of its people.”

“If it is true, as some rashly venture to assert, that the United States minister at Hawai‘i and the commander of the warship Boston, in violation of our international duty, assisted a band of revolutionists to depose the queen and to usurp the government of the islands …”

“… it is also true that President Harrison recognized that de facto and provisional government as having the rightful sovereignty in Hawaii, in so far that it could conclude a treaty of annexation with the United States, and such a treaty was duly signed and sent to the Senate.”

“Then President Cleveland, when he came into power, sent Mr Blount as his special commissioner and accredited him to President Dole as the representative of the sovereignty of Hawaii. If he, or those in the Senate who still suffer from the pangs and compunctions of conscience which he is supposed to have felt when he recognized President Dole had then renounced the actions of Minister Stevens and Captain Wiltse …”

“… and if Mr Cleveland had sent a minister to Lili‘uokalani as the rightful sovereign, they would have fully established the sincerity of their objections and would have shown ‘the courage of their convictions.’”

“But, instead of observing that logical course, they sent Mr Willis as minister to Hawai‘i and accredited him to President Dole as the chief executive of Hawai‘i.”

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Now, after the lapse of five years, it is urged that the Republic is a usurping government; that it is a fraud contrived for the personal advantage of its promoters, and that Lili‘uokalani is still the rightful queen of Hawai‘i….”

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“This act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed to the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation …”

“… which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawai‘i and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.) (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

And, as noted in the purported document that is inferred to suggest “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Opinion notes same – it does not; that document states, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Click Here to read the DOJ Opinion for yourself.

Click Here to read Newcomb’s Op-Ed.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

October 2, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The King’s Cape

“Centuries ago, when the rest of the world went to battle in iron clothing, the great seven-foot warriors of Hawaii donned gay war capes, fashioned of thousands of colorful feathers.”

“The principal colors used were red and yellow. The more yellow, the higher the rank of the wearer. … The first kings maintained a corps of trained ‘birdmen’ who lived in the forests and hunted these creatures.”

“They learned to imitate the call of the male and thus lure the birds close to their hiding place where they previously ‘doctored’ a flower particularly delectable to the bird they wished to catch.”

“Then they waited until the bird thrust his bill into the flower … Then the birdmen carefully removed the desired feathers and released the bird.” (Oakland Tribune, July 21, 1929)

Hawaiian featherwork consists of leis (or strings of feathers worn in the hair or around the neck,) kāhili (plumes of feathers used as royal insignia,) ahuʻula (cloaks or capes,) mahiole (helmets,) images of the god Kūkaʻilimoku (war god of Kamehameha,) or mat-like objects and other temple objects.) (Brigham)

The ‘ahuʻula (cloak or cape) was durable and comparatively small in bulk. Olonā (a fiber) was universally the basis of the Hawaiian feather capes. The Hawaiian had not looms, so a fiber net was formed as the foundation of the cape.

It was a common custom to net bands of a width from 8 to 12 inches and this was cut and joined. Regular and irregular pieces were put together to form the cape. (Brigham)

Hawaiian feather capes and cloaks were constructed by tying bundles of small feathers, usually 6-10 per bundle, to a foundation of netting. The ‘ahu‘ula of Kamehameha consists of approximately 450,000 feathers. (Bishop Museum)

To fasten feathers to this net much finer thread, often single fibers, was used and the feather was bound by 2 or 3 turns of the thread on the shaft of the feather. On the reverse, the feather did not show.

As in medieval Europe the vanquished knight was despoiled of his armor by the victor, so the chief who killed or captured his enemy took as spoils his feather cloak, helmet or lei. Generous Hawaiian chiefs often gave ‘ahuʻula as token of their friendship. (Brigham)

During the British warship Calypso’s three-and-a-half-month stay in Hawai‘i beginning on Oct. 2, 1858, its surgeon, WH Sloggett, was presented with a royal feather shoulder cape by King Kamehameha IV in gratitude for medical service he’d rendered the seriously ill King. (Soboleski)

“Sir Arthur Sloggett, surgeon-general of the British Expeditionary Forces during the World War, has presented, through a nephew who resides in the islands, the cape of Kamehameha IV, given to Sloggett’s great grandfather by the monarch.” (Oakland Tribune, July 21, 1929)

On occasion, the ship would carry King Kamehameha IV and his retinue to Hawai‘i Island. Taking advantage of the presence of the surgeon, the King requested an examination by Sloggett.

Sloggett declined to accept a fee. He felt he already was paid by the Navy so he didn’t need to be paid by the King for doing his job. (Faye)

However, as a gift Kamehameha IV delivered to the Calypso on its departure an ‘ahuʻula (red and yellow feather cape.) He hung it at his home in England. The King also gave him a small portrait of Queen Emma. (Faye, KauaiGold)

The Sloggett cape measures 15.5 inches in depth, 33 inches across at its widest width, and is made of the yellow and black feathers of the ‘o‘o (a now extinct black bird with one yellow feather indigenous to Hawai‘i), with yellow used as the background and black as ornamentation.

‘I‘iwi (a scarlet honeycreeper also indigenous to Hawai‘i) feathers also appear as ornamentation, while a network of olona fiber, intricately knotted, forms the foundation. The cape’s outside surface gleams like satin and its texture is as smooth as velvet.

Dr. Sloggett took the cape home to England, where he framed and hung it upon a wall in his house. Then in 1926, his son, Sir Arthur Sloggett, removed it from the drawing-room wall of his home in England and gave it to his nephew, Grove Farm Plantation director Henry Digby Sloggett, who returned it to Hawai‘i.

Henry Digby Sloggett passed the cape on to his son, Richard Henry Sloggett Sr, and for a time it was on loan to Honolulu’s Bishop Museum. The Sloggett cape can now be seen in the Kaua‘i Museum. (Soboleski) (Lots of information here is from Chris Faye and Kauai Museum. The image shows the Kamehameha IV ahuʻula given to Sloggett. (Faye – Kauai Museum))

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

kamehameha-iv-cape-given-to-sloggett-christinefaye-tgi

September 29, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Lili‘uokalani to Remarry?

“There will be a marriage before long of two distinguished personages of widely separated islands in the vast Pacific ocean. One of these personages is former Queen Lili‘uokalani of Hawaii and the other is Paea Salman, prince of Tahiti.”

“When asked as to the truth of the report that he would soon claim the former Hawaiian queen as a bride a broad smile enveloped the features of the prince – it was a happy smile, and there was love in his eyes, too.”

“He hesitated a moment before replying, and his mind seemed during that brief period to be occupied with pleasant thoughts of the queen. He toyed with a piece of twine and, almost bashfully said, ‘Now, really, l don’t like to discuss the matter. It is not for me to say. Affairs of the heart are not for the public. Do you think so?’” (San Francisco Call, September 29, 1907)

Two days later, Lili‘uokalani’s response was “couched in the single, sniffy word ‘No’ and Queen Lil had not the grace to cable herself. It was signed by her secretary.” (San Francisco Call, October 1, 1907)

Whoa; let’s look back …

Alexander Ariipaea Salmon (sometimes Salman,) known as ‘Pa‘ea,’ was the son of the Jewish Englishman Alexander Salmon, or Solomon, who had been Secretary to Tahiti’s Queen Pomare. His was from a rich and influential Tahitian family.

His mother, the ari‘i Taimai, was a historic personality in her own right. His sister Marau was the current queen of Tahiti, wife of their cousin King Pomare v. (Fischer)

By all accounts he was sincere, dedicated, honest and keenly interested in the Rapanui people – although his main concern, as a businessman, was always turning a profit.

Because of his native English and Tahitian, was well as rudimentary Rapanui, he served as principal informant for the British and Germans in 1882 and for the Americans in 1886. Pa‘ea Salmon would remain on Rapanui for a full decade.

Salmon inherited his father’s business interests and became co-owner with Brander of the Maison Brander copra and coconut oil plantations in Tahiti, the Marquesas and the Cooks. (Fischer)

“Prince Salman is a remarkably large man. He stands six feet two inches ‘in his stockings’, and weighs 300 pounds, all of which lie carries splendidly. He stands erect as any soldier, and, notwithstanding his great bulk, gets about as actively as a healthy youth of 18.”

“At his Island home, far away in the south seas, the prince, who has an abundance of riches and who owns extensive lands, is most popular. He is known as a ‘good fellow’ and probably the most easy-going of all the big chieftains of the islands.” (San Francisco Call, September 29, 1907)

“(W)hen the same prince visited Honolulu many years ago he made a very fine impression on the royal family as well as on local society in general.”

“His portrait, still preserved among the royal household treasures, shows him as a fine specimen of manhood. He must now be well above middle age and, from all accounts, is well preserved as well as abundantly wealthy and much traveled.”

“All Honolulu will join in the wish that his much reported intention of visiting Queen Liliuokalani may prove real through his arrival at an early date.” (Advertiser, March 3, 1907)

“The incident that occasioned the Queen the most inconvenience was when the Mariposa, running between San Francisco and Papeete, put in here for fuel oil.”

“A young man close to the Washington Place household, amidst an exciting misapprehension before the Mariposa docked that the steamer had been chartered to land the prince here, sent a wireless telegram to Lahaina to Queen Liliuokalani then there informing her of the prince’s arrival as a fact. She hastened to Honolulu only to find that it was all a mistake.”

“When the Queen was first apprised of the intended visit of the prince she began to make elaborate preparations, with no stint of expense, for his entertainment.”

“Her Waikiki beach villa was renovated and repainted from top to bottom, as well as improvements to the grounds made, the cost amounting to two thousand dollars or more.”

“It was Lili‘uokalani’s purpose to place the whole establishment at the prince’s disposal throughout his sojourn, or, if he preferred, the entire second floor of Washington Place in town which was also especially prepared for the purpose. (Advertiser, March 3, 1907)

“… of the courtship of Prince Salmon. It will, we hope, point a vigorous moral lesson on the dangers of overconfidence, the premature announcement that you have a thing cinched, or, to draw upon the old fable, of counting chickens before they have emerged from the shell.”

“So Prince Salmon, not conceiving how the queen could refuse an honorable offer from himself, which in the uniting of South Sea blood would not be without its political significance, announced that he was going to Honolulu, not to propose marriage, but in fact to marry the Queen.”

“He said nothing about it to her … but merely made a bid for an invitation to her Honolulu home.” (Town Talk, San Francisco Daily Times, October 26, 1907)

“Investigation, however, showed her that the prince had nothing in his own right; that his expedition in search for a wife had been financed by his friends.”

“Fearing that their prince might die and leave none of his blood to perpetuate the traditions of the island’s ruling house, certain of the prince’s faithful subjects … have banded themselves together to furnish funds by which a matrimonial campaign might be launched and carried on by the fat princeling.”

“He abandoned his suit to win ex-Queen Liliuokalani and laid his plans to capture the heart and fortune of a daughter of the Golden West, living in Berkeley. These plans came to nothing, however, through the opposition of the parents of the young woman, and sorrowfully the prince had to report another failure. His backers became furious.”

“Then came the troubles which have of late been crowding the smile from the broad, brown countenance of his majesty. The prince had been spending the money of his leal subjects as a prince should …”

“… for dinners to prima donnas, entertainments to chorus girls by the chorus full, rental of automobiles at $5 an hour, the best of everything and lots of it. It was but the due of a scion of such an illustrious house. Only the crash was fearful when it did come.”

“Beginning with the cashing of a worthless check in payment for a dinner at the Cafe Francisco, the downfall of his royal highness has been swift.”

“Fleeing from this city to Oakland to escape the jail which the proprietor of the cafe vowed should be his, the prince sent a messenger back to the hotel to fetch his clothes. But the hotel clerk refused to permit the royal garments to be moved ‘until the prince paid his bill.’” (San Francisco Call, November 11, 1907)

Shortly after, the paper noted, “Royal Suitor Languishing in a Prison Cell … Tahitian Prince Who Would Marry Hawai‘i’s Queen Goes to Jail … (and) has been sued for hotel and automobile bills.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, November 22, 1907)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

SFO Call-Sept 29 1907

Alexander_Ariipaea_Salmon

Prince_Kuhio_with_Alexander_Ariipaea_Salmon_(PP-97-1-048)

Ariipaea_Salmon

Salmon_family_of_Tahiti,_ca._1880s

September 28, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kona’s Royal Centers

The ‘Peopling of the Pacific’ began about 40,000 years ago with movement from Asia; by BC 1250, people were settling in the eastern Pacific. (Kirch) By BC 800, Polynesians settled in Samoa. (PVS)

Using stratigraphic archaeology and refinements in radiocarbon dating, studies suggest it was about 900-1000 AD that “Polynesian explorers first made their remarkable voyage from central Eastern Polynesia Islands, across the doldrums and into the North Pacific, to discover Hawai‘i.” (Kirch)

“(I)n the earliest times all the people were alii … it was only after the lapse of several generations that a division was made into commoners and chiefs”. (Malo)

Kamakau noted, in early Hawaiʻi “The parents were masters over their own family group … No man was made chief over another.” Essentially, the extended family was the socio, biological, economic and political unit.

Because each ʻohana (family) was served by a parental haku (master, overseer) and each family was self-sufficient and capable of satisfying its own needs, there was no need for a hierarchal structure.

As the population increased and wants and needs increased in variety and complexity (and it became too difficult to satisfy them with finite resources,) the need for chiefly rule became apparent.

As chiefdoms developed, the simple pecking order of titles and status likely evolved into a more complex and stratified structure.

Eventually, a highly stratified society evolved consisting of the aliʻi (ruling class,) kahuna (priestly and expert class of craftsmen, fishers and professionals) and makaʻainana (commoner class.)

Most of the makaʻainana were farmers, a few were fishermen. Tenants cultivated smaller crops for family consumption, to supply the needs of chiefs and provide tributes.

The aliʻi attained high social rank in several ways: by heredity, by appointment to political office, by marriage or by right of conquest. The first was determined at birth, the others by the outcomes of war and political process.

Power and prestige, and thus class divisions, were defined in terms of mana. Although the gods were the full embodiment of this sacredness, the royalty possessed it to a high degree because of their close genealogical ties to those deities.

The kahuna ratified this relationship by conducting ceremonies of appeasement and dedication on behalf of the chiefs, which also provided ideological security for the commoners who believed the gods were the power behind natural forces.

With the stratified social system, it was important to retain the division between aliʻi and makaʻainana. This was done through a physical separation, such as the Royal Centers that were restricted to only the aliʻi and kahuna.

Royal Centers were where the aliʻi resided; aliʻi often moved between several residences throughout the year. The Royal Centers were selected for their abundance of resources and recreation opportunities, with good surfing and canoe-landing sites being favored.

When working on a planning project in Kona, we came across references to “Royal Centers.” In the centuries prior to 1778, seven large and densely-populated Royal Centers were located along the shoreline between Kailua and Hōnaunau.

The compounds were areas selected by the ali‘i for their residences; ali‘i often moved between several residences throughout the year. The Royal Centers were selected for their abundance of resources and recreation opportunities, with good surfing and canoe-landing sites being favored.

The Hawaiian court was mobile within the districts the aliʻi controlled. A Chief’s attendants might consist of as many as 700 to 1000-followers, made of kahuna and political advisors; servants which included craftsmen, guards, stewards; relatives and others. (NPS)

Aliʻi often moved between several residences throughout the year. There was no regular schedule for movement between Royal Centers. In part, periodic moves served to ensure that district chiefs did not remain isolated, or unsupervised long enough to gather support for a revolt. (NPS)

Kamakahonu – At Kailua Bay, this was occupied by Kamehameha I between 1813 and 1819. This was Kamehameha’s compound after unifying the islands under single rule. The first missionaries landed here, just after the death of Kamehameha I.
Hōlualoa – Three major occupation sequences: Keolonāhihi, A.D. 1300; Keakamahana (mother) and Keakealaniwahine (daughter,) A.D. 1600; and Kamehameha I, A.D. 1780. It was split into two complexes when Ali‘i Drive was constructed in the 1800s: makai (seaward and west) designated Keolonāhihi State Historical Park; mauka (inland and east) is referred to as Keakealaniwahine’s Residence.
Kahaluʻu – Complex of Lonoikamakahiki ca. 1640-1660, and the oral histories specifically note its use by Alapa‘inui, Kalani‘ōpu‘u and Kamehameha — successive rulers from mid-1740s. The focus of this center was Kahalu‘u Bay, a sand fringed bay, with a complex of multiple heiau (many recently restored.)
Keauhou – Noted for the largest hōlua slide in Hawai‘i (the volume of stone used in its construction dwarfs that of the largest known temple platforms, making it the largest surviving structure from ancient Hawai‘i.) This is also the birthplace of Kauikeaouli; stillborn, revived and went on to become Kamehameha III (ca. 1814-1854), last son of Kamehameha I to rule Hawai‘i.
Kaʻawaloa – Home of Kalani‘ōpu‘u, ruling chief in power when Captain Cook sailed into Kealakekua Bay. Between Ka‘awaloa and Napo‘opo‘o is Pali Kapu O Keōua, a 600′ pali (cliff). Named for the ali‘i Keōua, who ruled in the mid-1700s, the pali was kapu (off limits) as a sacred burial area.
Kealakekua – Hikiʻau Heiau was dedicated to Lono (god of agriculture and prosperity.) Kamehameha rededicated Hikiau, “the most important heiau in the district of Kona.” This is where Opukahaʻia had trained to be a kahuna after being orphaned in Kamehameha’s wars. Opukahaʻia fled Hawaiʻi, spent nine years in New England and inspired the first missionaries to come to Hawaiʻi (he died before being able to return with the missionaries to Hawaiʻi.) When Captain James Cook landed in Kealakekua, he was received by the Hawaiians and honored as the returning god Lono.
Honaunau – Early in the area’s prehistory, a portion of land on the southwest side of the bay was declared a pu‘uhonua (sanctuary protected by the gods – almost every district in the islands had at least one pu‘uhonua in it.) There kapu breakers, defeated warriors and criminals could find safety when their lives were threatened if they could reach the enclosure before their pursuers caught them. This way of life began disappearing with Cook’s arrival in 1778 and, ultimately, Liholiho (Kamehameha II) abolished the kapu system in 1819.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger