Economy | Page 166 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

October 24, 2017 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Onomea Sugar

Onomea Plantation was started in 1863 by Judge Stafford L Austin and EH Allen. Austin “was the eldest of three sons of an attorney who was a self-made man, and who rose from the ranks of the laboring men, of Buffalo, New York.” (Judd, Supreme Court)

“Two brothers followed him to this country and left honorable records on the pages of Island history. Benjamin Hale Austin … was one of the Associate Judges of the Supreme Court, and Jonathan Austin was for a short time one of the Ministers of State under the late monarchy.” (Friend, October 1, 1896)

“(Austin) came to this country in 1852, he being then only 27 years of age, and was admitted to the Bar of the highest Court here.” He later became a Circuit Court Judge.

“As regards the matter of the various improvements, transportation of the cane in flumes, which had its origin in Hilo, I think he may well be said to have been one of the most enterprising and intelligent of the planters.” Onomea Plantation had a reputation for being one of the most advanced and best-equipped estates in Hawaii during its time.

“He worked hard and intelligently to make his plantation, the Onomea plantation a success.” (Judd, Supreme Court) During the early days, Onomea’s crushing plant was water driven. A metal water wheel and boiler had been shipped from Glasgow, Scotland in 1862.

Water from the flumes provided the power to turn the wheel, which in turn moved the sugar cane crusher. The water-driven crushing plant was much larger and heavier than those of other mills. The mill was situated just below Pāpaʻikou at the foot of a gulch, which opened out to the ocean.

It was the first nine-roller mill erected on the island. The mill was connected by rail to one of the best landings and loading devices on the coast.

The sugar cars were hauled to the landing by a cable and sugar could be sent over the main cable to the hold of a ship without rehandling. By means of this device about 1,600 bags of sugar could be loaded in an hour.

In 1888, Onomea consolidated with Paukaʻa, and Pāpaʻikou plantations and was reorganized into the Onomea Sugar Company. (Pāpaʻikou Plantation was originally owned by Charles Whetmore and EG Hitchcock and Paukaʻa Plantation was owned by Jonathan Austin.)

Onomea Sugar Company was situated in the Hilo district on the Island of Hawaii. The plantation property extended along the ocean front a distance of six miles and was at one point three miles deep terminating at the forests.

The elevation ranged from 20 to 1,500 feet. The rainfall in the vicinity was extremely heavy, from 200-250 inches per year, so no irrigation was required.

Water from Honolii, Pahoihoe, Kapue, Kaieie, Hanawi, Kahalii, Kawai-Nui and Waiaama streams was used for fluming and electrical power. Onomea was probably one of the most beautiful plantations with its abundance of streams, waterfalls, forests, ferns, and tropical plants.

A distinctive feature of Onomea was its system of flumes, which spanned gorges and carried cane down the slopes to the mill. Fifty-five miles of stationary and portable flumes were constructed.

The trestle, which carried the main flume across Hanawainui Gulch, was the largest wooden bridge in the territory and the one spanning Kawainui Gulch was the highest, 176 feet.

Onomea’s location in a heavy rainfall belt made it difficult to mechanize cane harvesting and transportation easily. The heavy rainfall also tended to wash topsoil away and leach it out. Onomea was the first Hawaiian sugar plantation to use commercial fertilizer on its fields.

Later on efforts to protects Onomea’s topsoils resulted in the invention of a plow which was adapted to the peculiar topography of the county and the nature of the soil. The shallow, clay-like soils were subject to washing unless properly cultivated.

Onomea was one of the last plantations to stop hand cutting cane. However, progress was made and the extensive road building program begun in 1903 was finally completed in 1956.

Onomea developed into one of Hawaii’s major producers of sugar cane. By 1926, the plantation had grown from 300 acres to 27,427 acres. Since it owned most of the land, its future was not dependent on the favorable extension of leases.

Onomea employed workers who came from China, Japan, Portugal, Philippines, Puerto Rico, and other countries. By 1941, over 3,000 men, women and children were living in six villages on the plantation.

There were 450 company owned houses, which included garden space. Free medical services were also provided. The advent of the labor unions also helped to improve the working conditions of the workers.

After World War II, the company experienced financial problems due to labor scarcity and later to high wage raises. During the course of time, C. Brewer & Co. had acquired controlling interest in the company.

In May of 1965, a proposal was made to merge Onomea Sugar Co. and Hilo Sugar Co. into a single C. Brewer subsidiary to be called Mauna Kea Sugar Co. The goal was to achieve greater operating efficiency and cost savings.

On July 26, 1965, the two companies were merged and the new Mauna Kea Sugar Co. became the third largest in acreage (13,000 acres) on the Big Island. (Lots of information here is from HSPA Plantation Archives – UH.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Onomea sugar plantation, Hamakua Coast, Hawaii Island-PP-28-11-008-1935

Onomea Bay-1920s

Onomea-Mill

Onomea Landing, Onomea, Hawaii Island-PP-30-5-018

Onomea Bay-PP-30-5-012-1930

Onomea Sugar Company Laborer’s Village Standard House-UH

Flume above Onomea, Hawaii island-PP-30-5-019

Onomea-Arch-with-flume-in-foreground-PP-30-5-030-1935

October 21, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

British View of the Islands in 1843

The following is a letter from the Earl of Aberdeen, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to William Miller, British Consul General for the Hawaiian (Sandwich) Islands, September 28, 1843 (as noted in the Report of the Historical Commission, Territory of Hawaii, 1925.)

Miller had just been appointed to this position. These instructions were given to him before his departure from England. It helps illustrate the policy of Great Britain toward the Hawaiian Islands at that time.

“The internal condition of the Sandwich Islands and their position with regard to Foreign Powers, and especially to Great Britain, are so peculiar that a few words of observation on my part may be required in order to enable you to form a correct judgment respecting the proposed policy of HM Govt, and the manner in which they would wish you to regulate your own conduct towards the Govt, of a Country so situated.”

“The Sandwich Islands are scarcely more than nominally governed by a Native Sovereign and native Chiefs. Citizens of the U. States are in fact the virtual Rulers and Directors of the Govt. The Constitution and the Laws are framed, and are administered chiefly by Americans; and American Missionaries in like manner direct the affairs of the Church, and keep, as it were, the consciences of the King, the Chiefs, and the native subjects.”

“It is obvious that the King and his native Councillors could of themselves have possessed little capacity for devising a Constitution or code of laws like those of the Sandwich Islands, and can have as little practical ability for administering them.”

“It must be fairly admitted that great credit is due to those American Missionaries who by their pious and unwearied labours first introduced the lights of Christianity and Civilization into those Islands …”

“… nor ought an equal share of credit to be withheld from those who, following up the advantages thus originally conferred by the Missionaries, have brought the Islanders, however imperfectly as yet, under subjection to a regular administrative system.”

“We have no right to entertain jealousy of the influence thus honourably acquired by the Americans amongst that people.”

“The changes effected by the Americans may have been somewhat over-hasty, considering the circumscribed intellectual condition of the people amongst whom they were introduced; but undoubted advantage has accrued to them from those changes.”

“It is certain, however, that the natives are, of themselves, incompetent to administer either their constitution or their laws. They must be, and are, practically administered by their Masters in Civilization.”

“The judges are, in part, Natives. The Juries are generally Americans. In fact all who are really engaged in carrying the laws into effect are not natives, but foreigners, and moreover foreigners from one country.”

“As such, they are of course liable to be swayed by the same feelings, whether of prejudices or prepossession, by which the generality of their countrymen are animated in their own country.”

“And on the other hand the same feelings, whether for good or for evil, are naturally liable to be directed against them by other foreigners in the Islands, It is sufficiently evident that a great jealousy has prevailed between the English and Americans established there.”

“It is difficult to say on which side the most embittered feelings have been exhibited; but it must be confessed that if on the side of the Americans a tendency to domineer and to avail themselves unfairly of their influence with the native Govt, has been not unfrequently visible …”

“… the conduct of the English residents has certainly not been marked either by prudence or by a spirit of conciliation. In fact it appears to have been as nearly as possible the reverse of what good sense and good policy would have dictated.”

“It is clear that it is not by openly striving against the dominant influence of the Americans that we can hope to combat it with effect.”

“The Americans, having in the first instance obtained a paramount controul over the natives by their religious efforts, and being both by their numbers, by the weight of established authority, and also by their landed acquisitions by marriage or otherwise, superior, in point of political and social position to other foreigners resident in the Islands, will continue, in spite of our efforts, to exercise that controul.”

“Under these circumstances our policy ought to be to seek to conciliate the real rulers of the Islands, not by any unbecoming subserviency, but simply by observing towards them a proper courtesy of demeanor, and by giving them fair credit for the good which they do.”

“At the same time we should seek, by our propriety of conduct, our fair-dealing, our steady observance of the laws, when justly administered, and our firm but temperate determination to insist upon their just administration, to inspire all persons, whether native or foreign, with confidence and respect.”

“If palpable injustice is done to a British subject, that injustice must be repaired without delay or subterfuge; and care should be taken to impress this necessity constantly on the minds of the Sovereign and his Chiefs, as well as on those persons in whose hands the Govt, may be practically placed.”

“But on no occasion should intemperate language or disrespectful demeanor be indulged in either towards the Chiefs or towards the subordinate officials of Govt.”

“By pursuing such a course of conduct HM Govt, have little doubt that they will, in a short time, cease to have! Complaints presented to them of outrages or acts of injustice done in the Sandwich Islands towards British Residents.”

“From what has been above said you will be enabled to form a clear conception of the principles on which it is wished that you should regulate your official conduct.”

“HM Govt, further think it desirable that you should apply yourself to every honorable means, to gain the ear and confidence of the Sovereign of the Country and of his most influential Advisers.”

“By so doing you may be enabled to obtain, without the necessity of official representation the correction, in embryo, of many an act, which, if not at once stop, might lead to altercation, and a disturbance of our mutual friendly relations.”

“When the British Residents see that the principal British Authority assumes a temperate and courteous tone and bearing towards the Sovereign and his Advisers they will not be long in following his lead.”

“We shall thus in due time substitute a kindly feeling and a spirit of good fellowship for those acrimonious and unconciliatory sentiments and demeanor which has so long prevailed on both sides, and to which, in great part, if not entirely, may be attributed the differences which have arisen between the two countries.”

This letter was written shortly after the Paulet Affair (when, on February 11, 1843, George Paulet raised the British flag and issued a proclamation annexing Hawai‘i to the British Crown.)

After five months of British rule, Queen Victoria, on learning the injustice done, immediately sent Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas to the islands to restore sovereignty to its rightful rulers. On July 31, 1843, the Hawaiian flag was raised again.

On November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian independence (Lord Aberdeen signed on behalf of Britain, French ambassador Louis Saint-Aulaire signed on behalf of France.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Downtown and Vicinity-Street_Names-Map-1843-over Google Earth

October 18, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Captain Cook

Around the 1400-1500s, the land was broken down into ahupuaʻa, ʻili and other physical subdivisions. All of the land was owned by the ruling chief. Each ahupuaʻa in turn was ruled by a lower chief, or aliʻi ʻai. He, in turn, appointed an overseer, or konohiki. (The common people never owned or ruled land.)

Each ahupuaʻa had its own name and boundary lines. Often the markers were natural features such as a large rock or a line of trees or even the home of a certain bird. An ahupuaʻa in a valley usually used its ridges and peaks as boundaries.

In ancient Hawaiʻi, there were no “towns,” “villages” or “cities,” in the modern context. Over the years, communities across the Islands grew. Here, the focus is on an area of South Kona on the Island of Hawai‘i.

Kealakekua translates as ‘pathway of the gods’ and is one of the most significant historic and cultural places in Hawaiʻi. It was selected by the aliʻi as one of the seven royal centers of Kona in the 1700s, because of its sheltered bay and abundance of natural resources.

Kaʻawaloa (meaning ‘the distant ʻawa plant’ and another Royal Center) has a flat, fan-shaped lava peninsula near sea level, which rises gradually to the edge of the 600-ft Pali Kapu O Keoua. These forty acres of land define the northwest side of Kealakekua Bay. It was where Cook was killed.

An obelisk monument commemorating Captain Cook was constructed in 1874, near the spot where Cook died. (Contrary to urban legend, the monument site is not owned by the British Government; ownership is in the name of the British Consul General (the individual) – a representative would check in with DLNR, from time to time.)

About 40-years after Cook’s death, the American Protestant missionaries arrived and established one of the earliest mission stations in Hawai‘i at Kaʻawaloa in 1824.

In the early 1830s it took one year or more for mail to reach the Islands from the continent, coming by way of Cape Horn. When the transcontinental railroad was built, it took about a month.

Prior to 1854 there was no regular mail service on the Islands. Letters were forwarded by chance opportunities. With expanding mail volumes, post offices were set up, often in a central store or business in the community. With growing communities, there was some uncertainty over postal facility names, apparently creating some confusion.

In the mauka area of Kealakekua and Ka‘awaloa, coffee started to thrive. “Coffee … since there weren’t very many other opportunities, was hung on to desperately by the farmers”. (Sherwood Greenwell – A Social History of Kona)

Coffee plants came to Kona via Hilo. In 1825 an English agriculturist named John Wilkinson, who in his younger years had been a planter in the West Indies, arrived at Honolulu on the frigate Blonde – along the way, he left some plants in Hilo. (Kuykendall)

Wilkinson planted coffee in Mānoa Valley in the vicinity of the present UH-Mānoa campus; from a small field, trees were introduced to other areas of O‘ahu and neighbor islands.

In 1828, American missionary Samuel Ruggles took cuttings from Hilo and brought them to Kona. Henry Nicholas Greenwell grew and marketed coffee and is recognized for putting “Kona Coffee” on the world markets.

At Weltausstellung 1873 Wien (World Exhibition in Vienna, Austria (1873,)) Greenwell was awarded a “Recognition Diploma” for his Kona Coffee. (Greenwell Farms)

Writer Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) seemed to concur with this when he noted in his Letters from Hawaiʻi, “The ride through the district of Kona to Kealakekua Bay took us through the famous coffee and orange section. I think the Kona coffee has a richer flavor than any other, be it grown where it may and call it what you please.”

Then, “Captain Cook’s name has received a new honor. The Captain Cook Coffee Company, of Kealakekua, Hawaii, has filed articles of incorporation, with capital stock of $60,000, of which $50,000 are subscribed.”

“Accompanying the articles is a list of property of WW Bruner acquired by the new corporation, in which the copyrighted name of “Captain Cook Coffee” Is set forth at a valuation of $2,000.”

“The company consists of W. W. Bruner, president and treasurer; AWT Bottomley, WL Stanley, WT Lucas, Thomas A. Honan, secretary, and M. R. Jamieson, auditor; all being stockholders except the latter.”

“Bruner owns 2196 of the 2500 shares subscribed and the rest own one each. The Bruner property, including a coffee ranch, etc, is taken over at a valuation of $50,000 including the $2,000 Captain Cook trademark.” (Hawaiian Star, July 22, 1905)

Captain Cook Coffee Co Ltd is one of the oldest existing coffee companies in Hawai‘i. Since the 1880s, Captain Cook has been growing and processing raw green Kona coffee. (CCCC)

Captain Cook Coffee Co. Ltd and H Hackfeld and Co. (later American Factors, Amfac) acted as the “middle men” or factors between the local farmers and the world coffee market.

American Factors advanced farm necessities and foodstuffs through affiliated stores (mostly operated by Japanese merchants) under the condition that farmers were to pay for their merchandise in coffee once the harvest was complete.

All this coffee was processed at company mills, American Factors’ in Kailua and Captain Cook’s at the mill on Napo‘opo‘o Road. In this way, two companies dominated the industry with the farmer having no control over the value of his crop. (Kona Historical Society)

Back to mail … “And the mail used to be quite an excitement. The old post office used to be – when I was a kid – in the old People’s Bank of Hilo building which is where the Bank of Hawai‘i is today. … And everybody would come to the post office to get their mail. Mail was quite an experience….”

“Eventually it was found that it would be practical or be convenient for the people up here to have another post office and so a post office was (opened) in the Captain Cook Coffee Company building. And the postmaster was the bookkeeper of Captain Cook Coffee Company.”

“And the name became Captain Cook (post office) because it was in Captain Cook Coffee Company’s building and was run by Captain Cook Coffee Company.”

“It could have been called Ka‘awaloa (post office) if they wanted to name it the name of the land.” (Sherwood Greenwell – A Social History of Kona)

It’s like “Up in Waimea, it’s called ‘Kamuela’ because the post office is called ‘Kamuela’ (even though) the place is called ‘Waimea.’ But (the post office) couldn’t be called ‘Waimea’ when they put a post office in because there was already a Waimea post office on Kauai.” (Sherwood Greenwell – A Social History of Kona)

By the 1930s there were more than 1,000 coffee farms and, as late as the 1950s, there were 6,000-acres of coffee in Kona. But in the mid-1950s, Captain Cook Coffee Co and American Factors got out of the coffee business.

Several coffee cooperatives formed to market Kona’s crop, among these being Sunset Co-op , which took over operations at the Napo‘opo‘o Mill, which is currently run by Kona Pacific Farmers Co-op. Mountain Thunder Coffee took over Captain Cook Coffee’s building in Kainaliu. (Kona Historical Society)

So, what is now known as the community of ‘Captain Cook’ was named for its post office, in the premises of the Captain Cook Coffee Co. Ltd. (The only place in the United States where coffee is grown commercially is in Hawaiʻi.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Captain Cook Coffee Company-KHS-1920

Kona Coffee-PP-17-1-002-00001

Farm land of Kona, Hawaii Island-PP-30-1-008-1930s

Coffee-PP-17-1-029-00001

Coffee-PP-17-1-028-00001

Coffee-PP-17-1-027-00001

Coffee-PP-17-1-012-00001

Coffee-Mills-Plantations-PP-17-1-001-00001

Coffee Mills-Plantations-PP-17-1-007-00001

Coffee Mills Plantations-PP-17-1-018-00001

Coffee Mills Plantations-PP-17-1-013-00001

Coffee Blossoms-PP-17-1-003-00001

Honaunau_USGS_Quadrangle-Honaunau-1924-portion

October 14, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

War Crimes?

The United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes (later renamed United War Crime Commission) was formed in 1943, following a declaration of the need for such by the three Allied superpowers, US, Britain and Russia.

It was set up to primarily: (1) investigate and record the evidence of war crimes, identifying where possible the individuals responsible and (2) report to the Governments concerned cases in which it appeared that adequate evidence might be expected to be forthcoming. (UNWCC History)

The UN War Crimes Commission was operational between 1943 and 1948 and played a vital role in preparation for the war crimes trials that followed the Second World War. (UN)

The International Criminal Court (ICC), at The Hague, Netherlands and formed as result of the Rome Statute in 1998, has jurisdiction over four main crimes: (1) genocide (specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group) …

… (2) crimes against humanity (large-scale attack against any civilian population); (3) grave breaches of the Geneva conventions (in the context of armed conflict); and (4) the crime of aggression (use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State.) (ICC)

The ICC, not a United Nations organization, does not have its own police force or enforcement body; it relies on cooperation with countries worldwide for support.

The US was a party to the Rome Statute, including the ICC; however, in a communication received on May 6, 2002, the US informed the Secretary-General, “that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.” (State Department)

The matter of war crime claims related to Hawai’i were recently addressed by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court – the Hawaii Supreme Court Publicly Censures Attorney for ‘War Crimes’ Accusations.

Click HERE to see press conference of local attorney accusing Hawai‘i court judges of war crimes.

A unanimous Order of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, issued on May 1, 2017, publicly censured a local attorney for making “with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation” accusations that a Judge committed “war crimes under international Conventions”.

In the Order, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court noted, “the allegations for which Respondent … faces discipline do not serve any discernible purpose within the underlying litigation and, hence, cannot be characterized as mere ‘zealous representation’ of the Respondent’s clients.”

“Nor do the allegations bear a rational relationship to any previous opinions of this or other courts of the State and, hence, are not good faith arguments for an extension of such precedent. … “

“In short, we conclude that the allegations serve no other purpose but to harass the presiding Judge by threatening him with dire consequences for his previous and subsequent rulings in the litigation.”

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the attorney’s allegations “‘imply a false assertion of fact’” which could “reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about their target” which are not true, and the charge of war criminal does, by its plain language, charge the Judge with “commission of a criminal offense.””

“[W]e conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record supports the violations identified by the Disciplinary Board: specifically, that, on July 13, 2012, by filing the Notice of Protest and its attachments in the Third Circuit litigation presided over by the Judge in question …”

“… Respondent …, with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation, accused the presiding Judge of committing war crimes under international Conventions and thereby filed a frivolous document that served no legal or practical purpose …”

“… in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Hawai’i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994), harassed and embarrassed the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(b), engaged in conduct reasonably likely to disrupt the tribunal – and which did disrupt the tribunal – in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(c), and made statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the integrity of the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 8.2.”

“In sum, in the words of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, (Respondent’s) accusations ‘erode public confidence without serving to publicize problems that justifiably deserve attention’ … As such, Respondent’s allegations are not protected speech.”

“We further conclude these allegations were made with a reckless disregard to their truth or falsity, and were not assertions a reasonable attorney, considered in light of all his professional functions, would make in the same or similar circumstances.” (SCAD-16-0000522; Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, May 1, 2017)

Click HERE for the Supreme Court decision.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals had similar language about the Kingdom claims. They note, “Our appellate courts have repeatedly held that claims involving the applicability of the Kingdom of Hawai’i laws are without merit.”

They cite the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruling in ‘State v. Kaulia’, noting, “Kaulia appears to argue that he is immune from the court’s jurisdiction because of the legitimacy of the Kingdom government. In that regard, we reaffirm that ‘[w]hatever may be said regarding the lawfulness’ of its origins, ‘the State of Hawai‘i . . . is now a lawful government.’” (CAAP-12-0000144 and others)

In the Kauila case, Kaulia claimed to be a “foreign national to USA and State of Hawaii as a subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii.” The Hawai‘i Supreme Court noted, “Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State’s laws.”

Adding, “Pursuant to HRS § 701-106 (1993),12 ‘the [S]tate’s criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i.’ … The State charged Kaulia based on his conduct in Kona, County and State of Hawai`i. Thus Kaulia is subject to the State’s criminal jurisdiction in this case.”

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Aliiolani_Hale_2011_by_D_Ramey_Logan

October 11, 2017 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Boer War

Gold had been mined since the early 1870s but was discovered on the Witwatersrand, in the Transvaal, in 1886. Thousands of white and black South Africans were employed on the mines by 1890.

South Africa became the single biggest gold producer in the world and this meant great growth for the independent Boer governments.

The Transvaal now also became more prominent in international finance because the importance of gold as an international monetary system. Britain was the center of industry and trade in the world at the time and needed a steady supply of gold to maintain this position.

There were various political leaders with opposing views in power in different parts of South Africa during the 1890s. Paul Kruger was president of the Transvaal or South African Republic (SAR) and Cecil John Rhodes became the premier of the Cape Colony in 1890.

Rhodes was from Britain and had made his fortune in South Africa by mining diamonds. He was also a supporter of the British imperial plan to unite South Africa under British rule. Kruger was a supporter of Boer independence and the two leaders were in direct conflict with each other. (South African History)

“The Boers were Dutch farmers of the Orange Free State in southern Africa. Incensed over British farmers moving into their land, the Boers declared war against Britain. … The British Empire, not to be trifled with, rushed half a million troops into the area. The Boers, never more than a few thousand in number, fought back using guerilla tactics.” (Star Bulletin, May 26, 1981)

“South African War (aka the Anglo-Boer War, or simply the Boer War) (October 11, 1899 – May 31, 1902) remains the most terrible and destructive modern armed conflict in South Africa’s history.”

“It was an event that in many ways shaped the history of 20th Century South Africa. The end of the war marked the end of the long process of British conquest of South African societies, both Black and White”. (Gilliomee and Mbenga )

Great Britain battled (and defeated) two Boer states in South Africa: the South African Republic (Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. Britain was aided by its Cape Colony, Colony of Natal and some native African allies.

Prince Kūhiō was with the British during the war in South Africa. … but, first, some background …

Prince Kūhiō studied under the late Alatau Atkinson in Honolulu, going from the Royal School to Punahou College and later attending St. Matthew’s College at San Mateo, Calif. He then went to England, studying at the Royal Agricultural College and taking business courses. (Orr; Nellist)

“As a young man Kalākaua wanted him to take up a military career and he was offered commissions in the British army, but his wishes ran to another way, he desired to study law and he achieved his desire. … His tastes were not militaristic, his trend was
toward law making and governing.” (Maui News, January 10, 1922)

In 1895, following the overthrow of Queen Lili‘uokalani, Kūhiō took part in a counterrevolution led by Robert Wilcox against the Republic of Hawai‘i. (DHHL)

The prince was charged with misprision of treason and served his sentence of one year in prison. During his imprisonment, a Kauai chiefess, Elizabeth Kahanu Ka‘auwai, visited him each day.

After his release, the two married on October 8, 1896. Kūhiō and Kahanu left Hawai‘i on a self-imposed exile and traveled extensively through Europe. (DHHL)

“They remained away two years, during which time they visited many interesting places” (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904), “vowing never to return to a Hawai‘i that appeared inhospitable to Hawaiians.” (Star Bulletin, March 26, 1996)

“They went to South Africa (where the) Prince was given an opportunity of enjoying some big game hunting. (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904)

“(T)he prince was anxious to see some of the fighting. But the authorities always managed to keep him away from the scene of the sklirmish although they saw bullets flying from a distance.” (Star Bulletin, February 20, 1932)

“(D)uring the Boer war … Prince Kūhiō had some exciting experiences with the British in their engagements with the Boer forces. The prince was on a train that was attacked by the Boers. He met the late Cecil Rhodes and was entertained by Sir J. Somers Vine.” (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904)

Kūhiō returned to the Islands and got into politics. In 1900, the Kanaka Maoli (aboriginal Hawaiians) had formed their own party, called the Home Rule Party, through merging two organizations, Hui Aloha ‘Āina and Hui Kālai‘āina, who had worked together to support Queen Lili‘uokalani and oppose annexation. (Silva)

That year, the Home Rulers elected Robert Wilcox as Hawaiʻi’s first delegate to the US Congress. (However, on July 10, 1902, Prince Kūhiō split from the Home Rule Party, joined the Republican Party and won the Congressional seat in the election on November 4, 1902.) (After a decade of election losses, the Home Rule Party was disbanded after the elections of 1912.)

Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole Piʻikoi died on January 7, 1922 of heart disease. He was given the last state funeral for an ali‘i; he is buried at Mauna ‘Ala, the Royal Mausoleum.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

boer-war-map

south-africa-map-1900

Kawananakoa, David, 1868-1908 and his brothers Edward Keliiahonui (1869-1887) and Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole (1871-1922)-PP-97-17-008

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922, in his military uniform-PP-97-1-031

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922, in prison uniform (1895) PP-97-1-032

Kuhio Wearing his campaign hat and shirt-PP-97-2-017

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922-wearing_Order_of_Kamehameha regalia-(HSA)-PP-97-2-008

JonahKuhioKalanianaole

U.S. Congressman Carter Glass, Lincoln Holstein (1865-1943), Kuhio, Congressman Phillip Campbell of Kansas, and Honolulu mayor John C. Lane (1872-1958)-PP-9