Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 133

January 16, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

It Wasn’t ‘Bloodless’

Many references to the overthrow of Hawai‘i’s constitutional monarch on January 17, 1893 say it was ‘bloodless,’ suggesting no one was injured.

However, that is not the case; “A policeman named Leialoha was shot in the breast by John Good about 2:30 o’clock this afternoon on Fort street.” (Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893)

Let’s look back …

At 2 pm, January 17, 1893, the members of the Executive and Advisory Councils of the Committee of Safety proceeded on foot to the Government building, most of them up Merchant Street and the rest up Queen Street.

That morning, John Good had been appointed ordnance officer, and with three assistants had been collecting arms and ammunitions from various stores. (Kuykendall)

“Good and four or five others were driving around the corner by H McIntyre & Bro’s store when the horse stumbled.”

“Two native policemen were standing at the corner and seeing a number of boxes on the wagon thought they were ammunition and caught the horse by the head.” (Eye witness account; Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893)

It is not clear why the police chose this moment to interfere with a wagon loaded with ammunition that was leaving EO Hall & Son’s store on King Street for the armory. (Kuykendall)

As the driver kept on, a policeman blew his whistle, and four or five more policemen came running up. A Fort street car had just crossed King Street, and together with a passing dray, blocked the way for a few moments. As the wagon turned to go up Fort Street, a struggle ensued. (Alexander)

“Good leveled a pistol at the officer when the latter dodged. The other officer made a jump for the horse again, when Good shot him in the breast, lacerating it badly.” (Eye witness account; Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893)

The wagon was then driven at full speed up Fort Street, pursued by two policemen on horseback, who were kept at a distance by rifles leveled at them from the wagon.

Good and his men continued on up Fort Street to School Street, and then down Punchbowl Street to the Armory. (Alexander)

“An officer was despatched for Good, but returned without him. He stated that Good had hid himself in the Skating Rink, along with others.” (Eye witness account; Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893)

Leialoha was assisted by another officer and Mr PM Rooney to the Station house, where he was attended to by Dr. Peterson. (Alexander)

At the sound of the shot, all the police ran toward Fort and King, thus enabling the Committee of Safety to proceed almost unobserved to the government building. (Kuykendall)

All were unarmed. Only one of the volunteer riflemen had arrived, and none of the Queen’s forces were in sight. The house was nearly ‘empty, swept and garnished.’

Leialoha was afterwards taken to the hospital, and in time entirely recovered from his wound. (Alexander) He was “presented with a purse of $200 made by citizens. President Dole forwarded the money yesterday.” (Daily Bulletin, January 19, 1893)

“On January 18th Mr J Emmeluth handed me a letter and $200 with the request to place same in the Hospital safe and give it to Leialoha when Dr Wood should consider him out of danger.”

“About a week later, the man being out of danger, I told Leialoha that I had the money and letter, and would give him both any time he wished me to do so.”

“He asked me to keep them for him until he should leave the Hospital; he was discharged on March 11th, and I paid him two hundred dollars in United States gold coin and handed him the letter at the same time.” (John F Eckardt, Purveyor Queen’s Hospital; Hawaiian Star, August 5, 1893)

It appears Good may not have been prosecuted for shooting the police office. He was, however, Court Martialed a few years later for “conduct(ing) himself in a manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, speaking to his men in a highly disrespectful manner of his commanding officers”. (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 22, 1896 & May 6, 1898)

Queen Lili‘uokalani suggested John Smith Walker also was a victim of the revolution, noting, “friends (who) expressed their sympathy in person; amongst these Mrs JS Walker, who had lost her husband by the treatment he received from the hands of the revolutionists. He was one of many who from persecution had succumbed to death.” (Lili‘uokalani)

However, Walker’s obituary suggests a long illness noting, “Hon John S Walker died at 8 o’clock this morning after a long and painful illness, at the age of about 73 years. … The departed gentleman was universally respected for his qualities of head and heart and will he generally lamented.”

“Mr Walker was a member of the House of Nobles under the old Constitution … Mr Walker was elected for the six-year term in 1890. He was President of the Legislature for the sessions of 1886, 1890 and 1892, in which position he evinced … the strictest impartiality.” (Daily Bulletin, May 29, 1893) The image is the gun and bullet used by Good.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Pistol used by John Good to shoot Officer Leialoha-PP-37-4-019

January 9, 2016 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.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

US-Congress-President-Clinton-Apology-Bill-Signing

January 7, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Four Horsemen

“Kuhio was not an heir-born but a created prince by royal proclamation at the coronation ceremonies of King Kalākaua and Queen Kapiʻolani in February, 1883, as was also his brother, the late David Kawananakoa. They were nephews of Kapiʻolani, the queen consort; sons of David Kahalepouli Piʻikoi, a high chief of Kauai, and Kinoiki Kekaulike.”

“Kuhio Kalanianaʻole was born at Kapaʻa, Kauai, March 26th, 1871, a lineal descendant of the last king of the islands of Kauai and Niʻihau. He married Elizabeth Kahanu K Kaauwai, a chiefess of the old regime, October 9th, 1896”. (Thrum)

“The last great work of Prince Kalanianaʻole was for his people. He labored ceaselessly for more than a year on a scheme of rehabilitation through which it is hoped the Hawaiian may be returned to the land of his ancestors, to live as fisherman and farmer.”

“Against formidable and aggressively active opposition the Prince managed to consummate his plans, and the ‘Rehabilitation Bill’ is now a law.”

“Through its operation large tracts of land … will be allotted to those of Hawaiian blood who desire to return to husbandry. Each will receive a sizeable farm and a sum in cash sufficient to put it under cultivation and sustain a family until the crops begin to yield…” (Mellen; Hitt)

A few years before the passage of the Rehabilitation Law, and a few days after the return of the Delegate Prince Kuhio from Washington, four Hawaiians, assembled at Pualeilani at Waikiki to discuss the subject “Rehabilitation of the Hawaiians.”

Dubbed the Four Horsemen, Kuhio, Rev Stephen Langhern Desha, Sr, John Carey Lane and Henry Lincoln Holstein had their pictures taken so Kuhio could show to his fellow congressmen at Washington his backers that brought up this important matter for rehabilitating its people.

Later other friends joined, and they were John H Wise, Noa Aluli, Akaiko Akana, Emil Muller, Attorney CK Breckons, and several others, and they planned to first pass the measure in the local legislature.

It was introduced by John Wise in the senate and backed by Senator Desha and John Lane, and it was introduced in the House by Speaker Holstein. It was through their efforts that it became a law and it was approved by congress at Washington. (Star-Bulletin)

Rev Stephen Langhern Desha, Sr had an unusual combination of ministry of the gospel, service in legislative bodies and publisher of a newspaper. He was behind the ‘Desha Bathing Suit Law,’ requiring all over 14 to cover up ‘at least to the knees,’ or be fined.

Desha began his career as pastor of the Napoʻopoʻo church, Kona and served Haili Church in Hilo for 45-years; he was a supervisor of the County of Hawaii and later elected to the senate of the Territory; and he was editor and business manager of the Hawaiian newspaper, ‘Ka Hoku o Hawaii.’

“Rev SL Desha is in a class by himself. One may listen to this man and watch him with much enjoyment without understanding a single word of what he says. … In eloquence of gesture, no speaker of any race I have seen can equal the Rev Desha when talking in Hawaiian.” (Hawaiian Star, October 10, 1908)

John Carey Lane was a member of the territorial senate from 1905 to 1907 and introduced the bill establishing the City and County of Honolulu. He was elected by an overwhelming majority to serve as Mayor of Honolulu from 1915 to 1917.

He was an avowed Royalist supporting Queen Liliʻuokalani, and Lane “was at her side when they usurped control and dethroned her in 1893, and he was among those who took part in the counterrevolution in 1895 with the hope of restoring her throne and native Hawaiian rule”. (Mellen; Advertiser, 1954)

Henry Lincoln Holstein served in the Senate of the Republic of Hawaiʻi from 1896 to 1898 and later as Speaker of the House in the House of Representatives of the Territorial legislature. Holstein served as the executor of Queen Liliʻuokalani’s estate.

The provisions of the Hawaiian Rehabilitation Act (Hawaiian Homes Act (HHCA)) are embodied the desires to (1) build up in Hawaiʻi a class of independent citizen farmers, and (2) place the Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian people back upon the land. (Rehabilitation in Hawaiʻi, 1922)

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Warren Harding on July 9, 1921, the HHCA provides for the rehabilitation of the native Hawaiian people through a government-sponsored homesteading program. Native Hawaiians are defined as individuals having at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood.

DHHL provides direct benefits to native Hawaiians in the form of 99-year homestead leases at an annual rental of $1. In 1990, the Legislature authorized the Department to extend leases for an aggregate term not to exceed 199 years.

Homestead leases are for residential, agricultural or pastoral purposes. Aquacultural leases are also authorized, but none have been awarded to date. The intent of the homesteading program is to provide for economic self-sufficiency of native Hawaiians through the provision of land.

Other benefits provided by the HHCA include financial assistance through direct loans or loan guarantees for home construction, replacement, or repair, and for the development of farms and ranches; technical assistance to farmers and ranchers; and the operation of water systems.

On January 7, 1922, six months after he had succeeded in having the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act passed, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaʻole passed away. (hawaii-edu)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

December 30, 2015 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Paʻaʻaina

“Dearest Mary thou hast left us,
Here thy loss we deeply feel,
But ‘tis God who hath bereft us,
He can all our sorrow heal.”
(The Friend, June 1853)

Isaac Davis and John Young arrived in Hawai‘i at the same time (1790 – on different boats.) Isaac Davis (Welch) was the sole survivor of the massacre of the crew of The Fair American; John Young, British boatswain on the Eleanora, was stranded on the Island of Hawai‘i.

“Young and Davis would have been killed had not Kaoanaeha, a high lady, fallen in love with Young and by her intercession with the King saved the lives of both sailors. Kaoanaeha was the most beautiful woman on the Island of Owhyhee and was the admiration of all the sailors who visited Karakakooa Bay.”

“She was the only daughter of Keliimaiki, the favorite brother of the great King, Kamehameha I. John Young and Kaoauaeba were soon married. King Kamehameha appreciated the superior talents of the white men and made them high chiefs.”

“When the navigator Vancouver visited the island, in 1793, he was entertained by King Kamehameha and John Young, who was then the King’s chief counselor. Young built the first house on the island of Hawaii, and its ruins are still to be seen. It is of stone.”

“Here Young and Kaoanaeha lived and died, and here their daughter, Fannie Young Kekelaokalani was born.” (NY Times, February 14, 1886)

Fanny married twice, first to Henry Coleman Lewis (they had a daughter Mary Polly Paʻaʻaina;) then Fannie married High Chief George Naʻea (Emma, their daughter, was Paʻaʻaina’s step sister – Emma later married Alexander Liholiho and became Queen Emma.)

Paʻaʻaina was hanai (adopted) by John Papa ʻIʻi and his wife Sarai; ʻIʻi served as kahu (caretaker) to Princess Victoria Kamamalu.

Paʻaʻaina, Emma and twelve others eventually (at varying times) entered the Chief’s Childrens’ School. The main goal of the school was to groom the next generation of the highest ranking chief’s children of the realm and secure their positions for Hawaii’s Kingdom.

Seven families were eligible under succession laws stated in the 1840 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i; Kamehameha III called on seven boys and seven girls of his family to board in the Chief’s Children’s School.

In May 1843, Paʻaʻaina was the last girl to enter the boarding school; she was 10 years old which was relatively old (the last boy “William Pitt” Kinaʻu entered in 1844.)

The children were taught reading, spelling, penmanship, arithmetic, geometry, algebra, physics, geography, history, bookkeeping, singing and English composition.

King Kamehameha III founded the Chief’s Children’s School (Royal School) in 1839. The school’s main goal was to groom the next generation of the highest ranking chief’s children of the realm and secure their positions for Hawaii’s Kingdom. King Kamehameha III “ask(ed) (missionary) Mr Cooke to be teacher for our royal children.”

In this school, the Hawai‘i sovereigns who reigned over the Hawaiian people from 1855 were educated, including: Alexander Liholiho (King Kamehameha IV;) Emma Naʻea Rooke (Queen Emma;) Lot Kapuāiwa (King Kamehameha V;) William Lunalilo (King Lunalilo;) Bernice Pauahi (Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop founder of Kamehameha Schools;) David Kalākaua (King Kalakaua) and Lydia Liliʻu Kamakaʻeha (Queen Liliʻuokalani.)

The Chiefs’ Children’s School was unique because for the first time Aliʻi children would be brought together in a group to be taught, ostensibly, about the ways of governance.

(After his experience running the school teaching and training Hawai‘i’s future monarchs, Amos Cooke then co-founded the firm Castle & Cooke which became one of the “Big Five” corporations that dominated the early Hawaiian economy.)

Paʻaʻaina was a pupil in the Royal School for seven years where she endeared herself to her teachers and fellow pupils.

Then, she married Mr James Augustus Griswold on December 30, 1851, in Honolulu. Unfortunately, the marriage was short-lived; she became ill.

“Her sufferings during her last sickness were extreme. She felt conscious of danger, and, as far as human eye could see, prepared herself for her departure.”

“She took a calm and effecting leave of her friends that were present, and sent her last message to absent ones. She expressed the wish that others whom she loved would prepare while in health for the trying hour of death.” (The Friend, June 1853)

She died at Honolulu, May 28, 1853. Her only child was a daughter named Mary Paʻaʻaina Griswold. (Kravitz)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

December 22, 2015 by Peter T Young 7 Comments

“Jehovah is my God. … I fear not Pele.”

“Ever since missionaries arrived (1820,) Kapiʻolani has constantly been situated near them, and for nearly two years has listened to the words of eternal life in her own language.” (Bingham)

In 1822, Naihe and Kapiʻolani were among the first chiefs to welcome instruction and accept Christianity. Kapiʻolani was the daughter of Keawemauhili, who was the high chief of the district of Hilo.

He was the uncle of Kiwalao, the young chief of the island Hawaiʻi, who was killed by Kamehameha’s warriors when Kamehameha became king of that island. She was the wife of Naihe, who was the high chief of the district of Kona. (Westervelt)

“The first day of 1823 was observed by the missionaries as a day of fasting and prayer, in reference to the cause of religion; and on the first Monday of that year, inviting the people to join them, they united with the friends of missions in the monthly concert of prayer for the conversion of the world.”

“Though few and feeble, they felt encouraged to lay hold on the great and exceedingly precious promises, and to expect a blessing to crown the means daily employed according to divine appointment.” (Bingham)

That year, a delegation of missionaries went around the island Hawaiʻi. They visited the volcano. The natives were astonished to see the perfect safety of the missionaries, although the worship and tabus of Pele were absolutely ignored.

Ohelo berries and strawberries growing on the brink of the crater were freely eaten and the lake of fire explored without even a thought of fear of the goddess. (Westervelt)

In the course of their journey the missionaries met a priestess of Pele. The priestess said: “I am Pele, I shall never die. Those who follow me, if part of their bones are taken to Kilauea, will live in the bright fire there.”

A missionary said, “Are you Pele?” She said, “Yes, I am Pele,” then proceeded to state her powers. A chief of low rank who had been a royal messenger under Kamehameha, and who was making the journey with the missionaries, interrupted the woman, saying: “Then it is true, you are Pele, and have destroyed the land, killed the people, and have spoiled the fishing-grounds.”

“If I were the king I would throw you into the sea.” The priestess was quick-witted and said that truly she had done some harm, but the rum of the foreigners was far more destructive. (Westervelt)

All this prepared the way for Kapiʻolani to attempt to break down the worship of the fire-goddess.

When Kapiʻolani said that she was going to prove the falsity of the worship of Pele, there was a storm of heartfelt opposition. The priests and worshippers of Pele honestly believed that divine punishment would fall on her.

When Kapiʻolani left her home in Kona her people, with great wailing, again attempted to persuade her to stay with them. The grief, stimulated by fear of things supernatural, was uncontrollable. The people followed their chiefess some distance with prayers and tears.

For more than 100-miles she journeyed, usually walking, sometimes having a smooth path, but again having to cross miles of the roughest, most rugged and sharp-edged lava. At last the party came to the vicinity of the volcano.

Toward the close of the day they crossed steaming cracks and chasms and drew nearer to the gaseous clouds of smoke which blew toward them from the great crater.

Here a priestess of Pele of the highest rank came to meet the party and turn them away from the dominions of the fire-goddess unless they would offer appropriate sacrifices. She knew Kapiʻolani’s purpose, and determined to frustrate it. (Westervelt)

The priestess who faced Kapiʻolani was very bold. She forbade her to approach any nearer to the volcano on pain of death at the hands of the furious goddess Pele.

“Who are you?” asked Kapiʻolani.
“I am one in whom the God dwells.”
“If God dwells in you, then you are wise and can teach me. Come and sit down.”

The people with Kapiʻolani were hushed into a terrified silence, but she listened quietly until the priestess, carried beyond her depth, read a confused mass of jumbled words, and unintelligible noises, which she called “The dialect of the ancient Pele.”

Then Kapiʻolani took her spelling-book, and a little book of a few printed hymns, and said: “You have pretended to deliver a message from your god, but we have not understood it. Now I will read you a message which you can understand, for I, too, have a letter.”

Then she read clearly the Biblical sentences printed in the spelling-book and some of the hymns. The priestess was silenced.

Kapiʻolani passed the priestess, went on to the crater, met missionary Mr. Goodrich (who had journeyed from Hilo to meet her there.) It was now evening, and a hut was built to shelter her until the next day came, when she could have the opportunity of descending into the crater.

As the morning light brought a wonderful view of the Lua Pele (The-pit-of-Pele) with its great masses of steam and smoke rising from the immense field of volcanic activity below, and as fierce explosions of gases bursting from the underworld in a continual cannonade, deafened the ears of the company, Kapiʻolani prepared to go down to defy Pele. (Westervelt)

Mr. Richards says: “A man whose duty it was to feed Pele, by throwing berries and the like into the volcano, entreated her to go no farther. ‘And what,’ said she, ‘will be the harm?’ The man replied, ‘You will die by Pele.’”

Kapiʻolani answered, ‘I shall not die by your god. That fire was kindled by my God.’ The man was silent and she went onward, descending several hundred feet, and there joined in a prayer to Jehovah. She also ate the berries consecrated to Pele, and threw stones into the volcano.”

“Then with the terrific bellowing and whizzing of the volcanic gases they mingled their voices in a solemn hymn of praise to the true God, and at the instance of the chiefess, Alapai, one of Kapiʻolani’s attendants, led them in prayer.” (Bingham)

“Here was a heroism of a more sublime and immortal character than that which rushes to the battle-field. Here was a philosophy which might put to the blush the pride of Pagan Athens and Rome, whose philosophers would risk nothing in suppressing idolatry, though they admitted its pretensions were unfounded.”

“Here was a movement which in its character, and consequences to a nation, was not wholly unlike to that of the sublime preacher on Mars Hill, whose ‘spirit was stirred in him when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.’” (Bingham)

“This has justly been called one of the greatest acts of moral courage ever performed.” (Alexander) “All the people of the district saw that she was not injured and have pronounced Pele to be powerless.” (Richards)

“There, in full view of the terrific panorama before them, the effects of an agency often appalling, she calmly addressed the company thus: “Jehovah is my God. He kindled these fires. I fear not Pele.”

“If I perish by the anger of Pele, then you may fear the power of Pele; but if I trust in Jehovah, and he shall save me from the wrath of Pele when I break through her tabus, then you must fear and serve the Lord Jehovah.” (Bingham)

The influence of Kapiʻolani on December 22, 1824 against this most influential form of idolatrous worship was felt throughout the whole nation.

“She told the missionaries she had come to strengthen their hearts and help them in their work. They rejoiced in the salutary influence which she exerted in favor of education and reform, an influence felt at once and happily continued when she had returned home.” (Bingham) The image shows Kapiʻolani defying Pele. (Herb Kane.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kapiolani_Defying_Pele-(HerbKane)